Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CRIM REVIEW DIGESTS (Callejo) 2011-2012
CRIM REVIEW DIGESTS (Callejo) 2011-2012
DIGESTS
ATTY. ROMEO CALLEJO, SR.
Issues:
1. Should the Writ for Habeas Corpus be granted?
2. Is the SC Admin. Circular 12-2000 a penal law?
What does it really order?
3. What is the positivist theory of criminal law?
Held: 1. No!
2. No!
3. See Doctrine
Doctrine:
1. Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as amended,
provides that the writ of habeas corpus is not allowed if the
person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the
custody of an officer under process issued by a court or
judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of
record. In this case De Joya was imprisoned by virtue of a
court judgment.
2. SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law;
hence, Article 22 of the RPC is not applicable. The
circular applies only to those cases pending as of the date
of its effectivity and not to cases already terminated by
final judgment. Also, it did not abolish imprisonment. It
merely lays down a rule of preference in the application of
the penalties for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. It says that when
imposing a fine would better serve the interest of justice,
the guilty party may just be fined instead of being
imprisoned.
3. In imposing penalties for crimes, the courts must bear in
mind that Philippine penal law is based on the Spanish
penal code and has adopted features of the positivist
theory of criminal law. The positivist theory states that the
basis for criminal liability is the sum total of the social and
economic phenomena to which the offense is expressed.
The adoption of the aspects of the theory is exemplified by
the indeterminate sentence law.
Philippine penal law looks at the convict as a
member of society. Among the important factors to be
considered in determining the penalty to be imposed on
him are (1) his relationship towards his dependents, family
and their relationship with him; and (2) his relationship
towards society at large and the State. The State is
concerned not only in the imperative necessity of
protecting the social organization against the criminal acts
of destructive individuals but also in redeeming the
individual for economic usefulness and other social ends.
The purpose of penalties is to secure justice.
The penalties imposed must not only be retributive but
must also be reformative, to give the convict an
opportunity to live a new life and rejoin society as a
productive and civic-spirited member of the community.
NAVALES V ABAYA
Facts: Last July 27, 2003 more than 300 junior officers
and enlisted men mostly from the elite units of the AFP
quietly entered the premises of the Ayala Center in Makati
City. They disarmed the security guards and took over the
Oakwood Premier Apartments (Oakwood). The soldiers
then made a statement through ABS-CBN News network
that they went to Oakwood to air their grievances against
the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
such as graft and corruption in the military, sale of arms
GONZALES v. ABAYA
*READ: concurring opinion of Justice Callejo
FACTS: This is about the Oakwood Mutiny (July 26, 2003)
where members of the AFP aimed to destabilize the
government with use of high-powered weapons and
explosive devices. Navy Lt. Trillanes IV & the troops
sported red armbands with the emblem Magdalo. They
broadcasted their grievances against GMA, such as the
graft and corruption in the military, the illegal sale of arms
& ammunition to the "enemies" of the State, and the
bombings in Davao City intended to acquire more military
assistance from the US government. They declared
withdrawal of support from the GMA & demanded her
resignation.
After several hours of negotiation, they eventually
surrendered. DOJ charged them with coup detat (defined
under Art. 134-A of the RPC) in RTC. Respondent Gen.
Narciso Abaya, then Chief of Staff, filed with the military
tribunal for violations of the Articles of War (Art. 63:
disrespect toward the Pres., Art. 64: disrespect toward a
superior officer, Art. 67: mutiny/sedition, Art. 96: for
conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman and
Art. 97: conduct prejudicial to good order & military
discipline).
Following the doctrine of absorption, Gen. Abaya
recommended that those charged with coup detat with
RTC should not be charged before the military tribunal for
violations of Articles of War. The RTC decided that all
charges before the court martial against the accusedare
hereby declared not service-connected, but rather
absorbed & in furtherance of the alleged crime of coup.
However, Judge Advocate Generals Office of the AFP
(JAGO)s Colonel recommended that 29 of the officers
(out of 321 coz DOJ dropped the case against the others)
be prosecuted before a general court martial for violation
of Art. 96. The AFP Judge Advocate General then directed
accused to answer the charge. Instead of complying, they
filed with the SC a Petition for Prohibition praying that the
respondents (JAGO) be ordered to desist from charging
them with violation of Art. 96.
Gonzales et al maintain that since the RTC has
made a determination in its Order of February 11, 2004
that the offense for violation of Article 96 (conduct
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of
War is not service-connected, but is absorbed in the crime
of coup detat, the military tribunal cannot compel them to
submit to its jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioners (rebels) are entitled to the
writ of prohibition.
GUEVARRA V. ALMODOVAR
Facts: John Philip Guevarra, an 11 year old, was playing
with his best friend Teodoro Almine, Jr. and three other
children in their backyard. They were target-shooting a
tansan using an air rifle borrowed from a neighbor. In the
course of their game, Almine was hit by a pellet on his left
collar bone which caused his unfortunate death.
After the preliminary investigation, the examining
Fiscal exculpated Guevarra due to his age and because
the unfortunate occurrence appeared to be an accident.
Almines parents appealed to the Ministry of Justice, which
PEOPLE vs OJEDA
PONENTE: Corona
FACTS: This is a case for estafa and violation of BP 22.
Cora Ojeda used to buy fabrics from Ruby Chua. All in all
Ojeda 228,306 pesos using 22 postdated checks. When
the checks were presented for payment, they were
dishonored due to account closed. Criminal charges
were lodged against Ojeda.
In defense Ojeda claims good faith, absence of
deceit, lack of notice of dishonor and full payment of the
amount of the checks. Also, Ojeda claims she advised
Chua not to cash the checks because they were not yet
sufficiently funded. Finally, she claims she made partial
10
11
PEOPLE V. DELIM
FACTS: Marlon, Manuel and Robert Delim are brothers.
They are the uncles of Leon and Ronald Delim. Modesto
Delim, the victim (deceased), was adopted by the father of
the brothers.
On January 23, 1999, Modesto, Rita (wife),
Randy (son) and their 2 grandchildren were about to eat
their dinner when Marlon, Robert and Ronald barged into
the house. They were armed with a short handgun. Marlon
poked his gun at Modesto while Robert and Ronald
simultaneously grabbed and hog-tied the victim. A piece of
cloth was placed in the mouth of Modesto. They then
herded Modesto out of the house on their way towards the
direction of Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. Leon and Manuel,
also armed with short handguns, stayed put by the door to
the house of Modesto and ordered Rita and Randy to stay
where they were. Leon and Manuel left the house at
around 7am the following day.
On January 27, 1999, Randy, in the company of
his relatives, found Modesto under thick bushes in a
grassy area. He was already dead. The cadaver was
bloated and in the state of decomposition. It exuded a bad
odor. Tiny white worms swarmed over and feasted on the
cadaver. Randy and his relatives immediately rushed to
the police station to report the incident and to seek
assistance.
According to the autopsy, the cause of death was
a gunshot wound at the head and the stab wounds
sustained by the victim on his left and forearm were
defensive wounds. The investigators confirmed that the
accused had no licenses for their firearms.
Only Marlon, Ronald and Leon were arrested.
Manuel and Robert were not found.
To exculpate themselves, Marlon, Ronald and
Leon interposed denial and alibi.
The trial court rendered judgment finding
accused-appellants guilty of aggravated murder (The trial
court appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance
12
13
CORPORATION
vs.
14
People v Carmen
ISSUE: W/N RRTC may be held subsidiarily liable for
damages awarded to the offended parties in the
criminal action against Romeo despite the filing of a
separate civil action by the offended parties against it.
NO.
HELD/RATIO: In negligence cases, the aggrieved party
has the choice between (1) an action to enforce civil
liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the Revised
Penal Code; and (2) a separate action for quasi delict
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Once the choice is made, the injured party can not avail
himself of any other remedy because he may not recover
damages twice for the same negligent act or omission of
the accused. This is the rule against double recovery. In
other words, "the same act or omission can create two
kinds of liability on the part of the offender, that is, civil
liability ex delicto, and civil liability quasi delicto" either of
which "may be enforced against the culprit, subject to the
caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the
offended party cannot recover damages under both types
of liability."
In this case, RRTC, as employer of the accused
Romeo, who has been adjudged guilty in the criminal case
for reckless imprudence, cannot be held subsidiarily liable
because of the filing of the separate civil action based on
quasi delict against it. In view of the reservation to file, and
the subsequent filing of the civil action for recovery of civil
liability, the same was not instituted with the criminal
action. Such separate civil action was for recovery of
15
16
17
at Zurbaran Mart as compared to her expenses. Accusedappellant would force sex on Grace especially when he
was drunk. Defense claimed that the accused was initially
thinking about ending his life by shooting himself because
of the financial woes and his wifes relentless pestering
and nagging, but in the process of both spouses struggle
to take possession of the gun, it went off and hit Grace.
Issue:
1) WON THE KILLING WAS ACCIDENTAL, AND THAT
THE DECEASED WAS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY (NO!)
2) MAIN ISSUE AS TO ARTICLE 3: WON THE KILLING
WAS DUE TO SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE (NO!)
3) WON ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF PARRICIDE BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT (YES!)
HELD: 1) No. First, accused-appellant cannot Paragraph
4, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code in order to be
exempted from criminal liability. Said provision pertinently
states:
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from
criminal liability. The following are exempt from criminal
liability: 4) Any person who, while performing a lawful act
with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without
fault or intention of causing it.
Accident to be exempting, presupposes that the
act done is lawful. Here, however, the act of accusedappellant of drawing a weapon in the course of a quarrel,
the same not being in self-defense, is unlawful -- it at least
constitutes light threats (Article 285, par. 1). There is thus
no room for the invocation of accident as a ground for
exemption. The gun was not even licensed or registered
hence, he could have been charged with illegal
possession of a firearm. Secondly, appellant's claim that
the shooting happened when he tried to prevent his wife
from killing herself and he and his wife grappled for the
possession of the gun is belied by the expert testimony of
Dr. Arizala of the who conducted a second post mortem
examination. Moreover, the act of accused ordering Eden
Ontog to call a taxi in which he brought the wounded
Grace to the hospital is "merely an indication or act of
repentance or contrition on the part of appellant. Accusedappellant's voluntary surrender is not sufficient ground to
exculpate him from criminal liability. The law merely
considers such act as a mitigating circumstance. Nonflight is not proof of innocence.
2) No. What qualifies an act of reckless or simple
negligence or imprudence is the lack of malice or criminal
intent in the execution thereof. Moreover, if the version of
grappling for the gun were to be believed, there should
have been nitrates on both hands of Grace, as examined
by the NBI doctor who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the cadaver of the victim. Thus, these
18
19
20
FAJARDO V PEOPLE
Art 3-Mala ProhibitaIllegal possession of part of firearm
& plain view doctrine
Facts: Fajardo filed a Petition for certiorari on the decision
of CA and RTC finding Fajardo guilty of violating PD 1866
(illegal possession of firearms). The case stemmed from a
complaint filed by citizens that armed men were drinking
liquor and firing guns at Fajardos residence. The police
and the PISOG arrived at their residence to find men
scampering and then saw Valerio w/ 2 45 caliber pistols,
engaging in a shootout w/ the police before running into
Fajardos house. Fajardo was also seen tucking a 45
caliber pistol in her shorts before running into her home.
The police opted not to enter and just cordoned the area.
At around 2 and 4 am, Valerio was seen tossing 2
receivers (part ng pistol) which was recovered and
surrendered to SPo1 Tan who used them to apply for a
warrant. They found several ammos within the house and
filed for illegal possession of firearms against both parties
but Fajardo countered that the search warrant was
defective in that when it was issued it wasnt based on
Tans personal knowledge and they didnt accompany the
police while conducting the search. She also disowned the
ammos because they allegedly belonged to her brother
and also denied having the pistol when the police arrived.
RTC: Fajardo and her bodyguard Valerio is guilty
of illegal possession of firearm.
CA: Affirmed the findings but said that the search
warrant is void because it wasnt based on Tans personal
21
GARCIA V. CA
FACTS: Based on the complaint of Aquilino Pimentel who
ran in the senatorial elections, he charged elections officer
Arsenia Garcia for willfully decreasing the votes received
by senatorial candidate Pimentel from 6,988 votes, as
clearly disclosed in the total number of votes in the 159
precincts of the statement of votes by precincts of said
municipality to 1921 votes with a difference of 5,077. The
RTC convicted accused and gave a prison sentence. On
appeal however it was contended that there was no
criminal intent and bad faith in his actions. Respondent on
the other hand contends that a violation of an election law
is a mala prohibita and good faith is not a defense.
ISSUE: WON a violation of section 27b of R.A. 6646 is a
mala in se or mala prohibita? And could good faith and
lack of criminal intent be a valid defense?
HELD: mala in se
Generally, mala in se felonies are defined and penalized in
the Revised Penal Code. When the acts complained of are
inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if
they are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal
intent must be clearly established with the other elements
of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On the
other hand, in crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal
acts are not inherently immoral but become punishable
only because the law says they are forbidden. With these
crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been
violated. Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts
are prohibited for reasons of public policy.
An election offense is defined as:
(b) Any member of the board of election inspectors or
board of canvassers who tampers, increases, or
decreases the votes received by a candidate in any
election or any member of the board who refuses, after
proper verification and hearing, to credit the correct votes
or deduct such tampered votes.
Clearly, the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are
mala in se. For otherwise, even errors and mistakes
committed due to overwork and fatigue would be
punishable. Given the volume of votes to be counted and
canvassed within a limited amount of time, errors and
miscalculations are bound to happen. And it could not be
the intent of the law to punish unintentional election
canvass errors. However, intentionally increasing or
decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate is
inherently immoral, since it is done with malice and intent
to injure another.
22
23
PEOPLE v. MOLDES
Facts: Inocente Moldes was convicted of homicide by the
CFI of Leyte. On the night of April 3 in a barrio, there was
a dance in a private house, and the deceased was the
master of ceremonies. Moldes insisted on dancing out of
turn and was reproved by the deceased. Moldes went to
the porch and began cutting down the decorations with his
bolo. He went into the yard and challenged everyone to a
fight. Not attracting enough attention, he began chopping
bamboo trees.
The deceased, unarmed, spoke to him in a
friendly manner as he descended into the yard. But
Moldes struck him with his bolo, inflicting a wound on his
left arm (long incised wound on the lower portion directed
downwards). As the deceased fell, Moldes inflicted a
slight wound on his back and ran away. The wound was
treated the next morning. However, it failed to stop the
hemorrhage and the deceased died after 12 days.
Moldess defense was that he was behaving at
the dance, and it was the deceased who struck him on the
dance floor with a cane. He attempted to run away but the
deceased followed him with a cane and a bolo. He
succeeded in wrenching the bolo away and inflicted the
wounds in self-defense.
The CFI convicted him. The attorney urged that
Moldes did not intend to commit as serious a wound as
was inflicted but struck only in the dark and in selfdefense. It is also contended that had the deceased
secured proper surgical treatment, the wound would not
have been fatal (but such was not available in that barrio).
Issue: W/N he is guilty of homicide YES
Ratio: The SC ruled that there was no element of selfdefense. When one resorts to the use of a lethal weapon
and strikes another with the force that must have been
used in this case, it is presumed that he realizes the
natural consequences of his act.
The GR is that he who inflicts the injury is not
relieved of responsibility if the wound inflicted is
dangerous, even though the immediate cause of the death
was erroneous or unskillful medical treatment. This rule is
MELBA QUINTO
RANDYVER PACHECO
vs. DANTE
ANDRES
and
FACTS:
At around 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1995, 11-year
old Edison Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school pupil,
and his playmate, Wilson Quinto saw respondents
Dante Andres and Randyver Pacheco by the mouth of
a drainage culvert.
Andres and Pacheco invited Wilson to go fishing with
them inside the drainage culvert. Wilson assented.
When Garcia saw that it was dark inside, he opted to
remain seated in a grassy area about two meters from
the entrance of the drainage system.
Respondent Pacheco had a flashlight. He, along with
respondent Andres and Wilson, entered the drainage
system which was covered by concrete culvert about
a meter high and a meter wide, with water about a
foot deep.
After a while, respondent Pacheco, who was holding
a fish, came out of the drainage system and left
without saying a word. Respondent Andres also
came out, went back inside, and emerged again, this
time, carrying Wilson who was already dead.
Respondent Andres laid the boys lifeless body down
in the grassy area. Shocked at the sudden turn of
events, Garcia fled from the scene. For his part,
respondent Andres went to the house of petitioner
Melba Quinto, Wilsons mother, and informed her that
her son had died. Melba Quinto rushed to the
drainage culvert while respondent Andres followed
her.
The police authorities of Tarlac, Tarlac, did not file
any criminal complaint against the respondents for
Wilsons death.
Two weeks thereafter, investigators took the sworn
statements of respondent Pacheco, Garcia and
petitioner Quinto.
Respondent Pacheco alleged that he had never been
to the drainage system catching fish with respondent
Andres and Wilson. He also declared that he saw
Wilson already dead when he passed by the drainage
system while riding on his carabao.
24
25
Issue:
1.) W/N Court erred in convicting Opero for robbery with
homicide? [per Opero: he never intended to kill the
deceased, his intention being merely to rob her, had he
the intention to kill her he could have easily done so with
the knife]
2.) W/N Art.49, par.1 of the RPC [which provides that in
cases in which a felony committed is different from that
which the offender intended to commit and the penalty
prescribed for the felony committed is higher than the
offense to which the accused intended to commit, the
penalty corresponding to the offense which accused
intended to commit shall be imposed in its maximum
period] should apply to Opero?
Held & Ratio:
1.) Appellant's theory finds no basis in the law or in
jurisprudence. It was been repeatedly held that when
direct and intimate connection exists between the robbery
and the killing, regardless of which of the two precedes the
other, or whether they are committed at the same time, the
crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide. If the circumstances would indicate no
intention to kill, as in the instant case were evidently, the
intention is to prevent the deceased from making an
outcry, and so a "pandesal" was stuffed into her mouth,
the mitigating circumstance of not having intended to
commit so grave a wrong may be appreciated. The
stuffing of the "pandesal" in the mouth would not have
produced asphyxiation had it not slid into the neckline,
"caused by the victim's own movements, " according to Dr.
Singian. The movements of the victim that caused the
"pandesal" to slide into the neckline were, however,
attributable to what appellant and his co-accused did to
the victim, for if they did not hogtie her, she could have
easily removed the "pandesal" from her mouth and
avoided death by asphyxiation.
It may not avail appellant to contend that the
death was by mere accident for even if it were so, which is
not even beyond doubt for the sliding of the pandesal into
the neckline to produce asphyxiation could reasonably
have been anticipated, it is a settled doctrine that when
death supervenes by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery, it is immaterial that the occurrence of death was
by mere accident. What is important and decisive is that
death results by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery. These Spanish doctrines were cited by this Court
in People vs. Mangulabnan, et al., 99 Phil. 992.
2.) Article 49, par. 1 of the RPC applies only to cases
when the crime committed befalls a different person from
the one intended to be the victim. This was the explicit
ruling in the case of People vs. Albuquerque, 59 Phil. 150153, citing Supreme Court of decisions Spain.
26
27
28
29
30
ISSUE:
1. First Criminal Case: W/N the information was
defective because the date of the offense on or
about August 1988 is too indefinite.
2.
3.
HELD:
1.
2.
3.
NO.
Attempted Rape.
YES. NO, 2 counts of simple rape.
Summary:
First Criminal Case: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
simple rape.
Second Criminal Case: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
attempted rape.
Third and Fourth Criminal Case: guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of 2 counts of simple rape.
FIRST CRIMINAL CASE: SIMPLE RAPE
Lizada avers that the Information for this Case is defective
because the date of the offense "on or about August 1998"
alleged therein is too indefinite, in violation of Rule 110,
Section 11 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
which reads:
"Sec. 11. Date of commission of the offense. It
is not necessary to state in the complaint or information
the precise date the offense was committed except when it
is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be
alleged to have been committed on a date as near as
possible to the actual date of its commission.
Lizada further asserts that the prosecution failed
to proved that he raped Analia in August 1988. The OSG
argued that that the date "on or about August 1998" is
sufficiently definite. After all, the date of the commission of
the crime of rape is not an essential element of the crime.
Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes
occurred does not ipso facto make the information
defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The precise
date or time when the victim was raped is not an element
of the offense. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of
carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances
enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at
any time as near to the actual date when the offense was
committed an information is sufficient.
SECOND CRIMINAL CASE: ATTEMPTED RAPE
31
32
PEOPLE VS LAMAHANG
Lamahang was caught by a policeman the act of making
an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap
goods. The accused had only succeeded in breaking one
board and in unfastening another from the wall, when the
policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and
placed him under custody. The lower court found him
guilty of attempted robbery.
Issue: Is he guilty of attempted robbery?
Held: NO. He is guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling
The attempt to commit an offense which the Penal
Code punishes is that which has a logical relation to a
particular, concrete offense; that, which is the
beginning of the execution of the offense by overt acts
of the perpetrator, leading directly to its realization
and consummation. The attempt to commit an
indeterminate offense, inasmuch as its nature in
relation to its objective is ambiguous, is not a juridical
fact from the standpoint of the Penal Code.
There is no doubt that in the case at bar it was the
intention of the accused to enter Tan Yu's store by
means of violence, passing through the opening
which he had started to make on the wall, in order to
commit an offense which, due to the timely arrival of
the police, did not develop beyond the first steps of its
execution.
But it is not sufficient, for the purpose of imposing
penal sanction, that an act objectively performed
constitute a mere beginning of execution; it is
necessary to establish its unavoidable connection,
like the logical and natural relation of the cause and
its effect, with the deed which, upon its
consummation, will develop into one of the offenses
defined and punished by the Code; it is necessary to
33
PEOPLE V. CAMPUHAN
Facts: Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan, mother of four (4)-year
old Crysthel, went down from the second floor of their
house to prepare Milo for her children. At the ground floor
she met Primo Campuhan, a helper of her brother, who
was then busy filling small plastic bags with water to be
frozen into ice in the freezer located at the second floor.
As she was busy preparing the drinks, she heard one of
her daughters cry, "Ayoko, ayoko!" prompting her to rush
upstairs. There, she saw Campuhan inside her childrens
34
be
deemed
as
35
36
PEOPLE V. SALVILLA
FACTS: 4 were charged with the crime of robbery with
serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention but
only Salvilla appealed.
A robbery was staged by the 4 accused at the
New Iloilo Lumber Yard. They were armed with
homemade guns and hand grenade. They entered the
establishment and told Rodita (employee) that it was a
hold-up. Salvilla pointed his gun at Severino Choco
(owner), Mary and Minnie (2 daughters with one minor)
and told Severino that all they needed was money.
Severino told Mary to get a paper bag wherein he placed
P20,000.00 cash (P5,000.00, according to the defense)
and handed it to Salvilla. Thereafter, Severino pleaded
with the 4 accused to leave the premises as they already
had the money but they paid no heed. Instead, one
accused took the wallet and wristwatch of Severino after
which the latter, his two daughters, and Rodita, were
herded to the office and kept there as hostages.
Thereafter, Salvilla told Severino to produce
P100,000.00 so he and the other hostages could be
released. Severino answered that he could not do so
because it was a Saturday and the banks were closed.
In the meantime, police and military authorities
had surrounded the premises of the lumber yard. They
negotiated with the accused using a loud speaker and
appealed to them to surrender with the assurance that no
harm would befall them as he would accompany them
personally to the police station. The accused refused to
surrender or to release the hostages.
The OIC Mayor arrived and joined the
negotiations. Salvilla demanded P100,000.00, a coaster,
and some raincoats. She offered them P50,000.00
instead, explaining the difficulty of raising more as it was a
Saturday. The accused agreed to receive the same and to
release Rodita. The P50,000 was given and Rodita
released.
37
the
conviction
for
consummated
2) No!
To be mitigating, a surrender must have the
following requisites: (a) that the offender had not been
actually arrested; (b) that the offender surrendered himself
to a person in authority or to his agent; and (c) that the
surrender was voluntary.
In this case, the "surrender" by the accused
hardly meets these requirements. They were asked to
surrender by the police and military authorities but they
refused until only much later when they could no longer do
otherwise by force of circumstances when they knew they
were completely surrounded and there was no chance of
escape. The surrender of the accused was held not to be
mitigating as when he gave up only after he was
surrounded by the constabulary and police forces. Their
surrender was not spontaneous as it was motivated more
by an intent to insure their safety. And while it is claimed
that they intended to surrender, the fact is that they did not
despite several opportunities to do so. There is no
voluntary surrender to speak of.
38
39
40
Vitug, Dissenting:
Allegation of conspiracy is not enough. It is neither right
nor just, to cast criminal liability on one for the acts or
deeds of plunder that may have been committed by
another or others over which he has not consented or
acceded to, participated in, or even in fact been aware of.
Such vicarious criminal liability is never to be taken lightly
but must always be made explicit not merely at the trial but
likewise, and no less important, in the complaint or
information itself in order to meet the fundamental right of
an accused to be fully informed of the charge against him.
Kapunan, and Buena, J, Dissenting:
The requirement for complete allegations on the
particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the
accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charge
against him, so that he may adequately prepare for this
defense pursuant to the due process clause of the
Constitution.
The fact, however, is that it is the
prosecution which determines the charges to be filed and
how the legal and factual elements in the case shall be
utilized as components of the information. It is not for the
accused, usually a layman, to speculate upon the
purposes and strategy of the prosecution and be
thereafter prejudiced through erroneous guesswork.
Thus, since the People dictate what he should be charged
with, fairness demands that he should not be convicted of
a crime with which he is not charged or which is not
necessarily included therein.
Ynares-Santiago, Dissenting:
There is no showing in the records that Mayor Estrada
consciously adopted a common plan or joined in
concerted action with President Estrada and Governor
Singson to commit any two of the four criminal acts in the
amended information or conspired to commit more than
once the receipt and transmission of jueteng money. If the
petitioner was aware that the money entrusted to him for
delivery came from illegal gambling, it is established that
mere knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to
cooperate (in the transmission of jueteng funds in this
case) is not enough to constitute one as a conspirator of
the crime (in this case, plunder) with a view to a
furtherance of the common design and purpose.
Petitioner states that he is linked to only P2,000,000.00 of
jueteng money but the Ombudsman seeks to hold him
responsible with his father for the aggregate amount of
P4,097,804,173.17 of ill-gotten wealth.
Petitioners
criminal act is alleged to be contributing to the crime of
plunder. This construction of the law by the Prosecution
is dangerous if not ominous.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Dissenting:
My theory is that there are four separate conspiracies with
no overall goal or common purpose to commit the crime of
41
PEOPLE V. PAGALASAN
Facts: Crime: Two counts of Kidnapping for Ransom (of
George Lim and son Christopher Lim-10yo)
Spouses George and Desiree Lim had 3 children,
one of whom is Christopher. They resided in Villa
Consuelo Subdivision in General Santos City. They hired
a security guard, Ferdinand Cortez.
On Sept. 4, 1994, around 11 pm, 4 armed men
barged into their house through the kitchen door. The
intruders all wore bonnets and when they entered through
the kitchen door, they dragged security guard Ferdinand
with them with his hands tied. The men barged into the
bedroom of the spouses Lim. They demanded that the
spouses cooperate with their demands if they didnt want
to get hurt. They ransacked the house, got cash and other
valuables. Thereafter, the men gave wife Desiree a
handwritten note. The note threatened the spouses not to
get the military involved and that they will be getting in
touch with the couple soon.
The men demanded that George give them the
key to the car. He complied. The men dragged George
and one of his children, Christopher, to the car. The men
drove along the national highway and blindfolded George
and Christopher. After some time driving, the car stopped
at Sitio Tupi and 2 of the men alighted bringing with them
Christopher. Then the driver again started the car to
transport George to Maasim.
Meanwhile, the police were informed of the
kidnapping and policemen were dispatched for
investigation and set up a checkpoint. The masked driver
with George halted when he saw the checkpoint, switched
off the headlights and took off his mask. The driver turned
out to be the appellant in this case, Michael Pagalasan.
The policemen approached the car, indentified themselves
and asked for the passengers names. Although George
gave a false name, the policemen saw his hands were
shaking and they opened the door of the car. They
arrested Pagalasan and inspected the vehicle, finding a
handgun and a grenade.
At the police station, Pagalasan was placed
under custodial investigation. It is said that the police
inquired if Pagalasan wanted to execute an affidavit and if
he knew a lawyer. Pagalasan said he wanted to and that
he didnt knew any lawyer. Thereafter, Atty. Falgui was
42
43
SENOJA V. PEOPLE
Facts: Exequiel Senoja, Fidel Senoja (they were brothers),
Jose Calica and Miguel Lumasac were drinking gin in the
hut of Crisanto Reguyal. Leon Lumasac suddenly barged
in, holding a bolo and was looking for his brother Miguel
whom he suspected of drying up the ricefield he was
plowing. However, when Senoja (Exequiel) approached
Leon, the latter tried to hack him so he embraced Leon
and Jose took Leons bolo. After the confrontation, Leon
wanted to get his bolo back because he wanted to go
home. After getting it back, Leon walked out of the place
followed by Senoja. Suddenly, Senoja stabbled Leon at
the back. When Leon turned around, Senoja continued
stabbing him until he fell to the ground. Then petitioner ran
towards the barangay road and threw away the knife he
used to stab Leon.
Petitioner admitted killing the victim but invoked
the affirmative defense of self-defense. His version said
that after the commotion inside the house, Leon left but
with a threat that something will happen to Senoja. Senoja
followed Leon as the latter was making his way home.
When Leon realized that Senoja was following him, Leon
walked back towards him and suddenly hacked Senoja at
the left side of his head and right thigh. Unable to evade
the treacherous attack by Leon, Senoja drew his colonial
knife and stabbed Leon in self-defense, inflicting upon him
multiple wounds which caused his death.
Issue: W/N Senoja merely acted in self-defense
Held: No, Senoja is guilty of HOMICIDE.
44
45
People v Cajurao
Memory aid: NIPPLE STAB
Cajurao was charged with murder (qualified by treachery)
for stabbing Santiago Betita.
On November 29, 1993, the residents of
Poblacion, Surallah, South Cotabato were in a festive
mood. There was carnival in the municipal plaza. There
was also a disco in the town gym. Pacita Pordios put up a
stall outside the gym. She used a makeshift lamp (a bottle
of Tanduay with kerosene) to light her stall.
Cajurao and his friend Danosos tried to enter the
gym, but as they didnt have any tickets, they were refused
entry.
At around 10:30 PM, the victim Betita went to
Pordios stall and got her lamp. Pordios got angry with
Betita, but the latter just ignored Pordios. Suddenly,
someone threw a stone, prompting people to scamper
away. And then, out of nowhere, Cajurao sped towards
Betita and stabbed him on the right nipple. Cajurao ran
away but was soon caught by some volunteers, led by
Domingo Tecson.
46
PEOPLE V CATBAGAN
(Pretty long case because it involved 3 victims Mickey).
Memory aid: 3 victims.
Catbagan was charged of homicide, murder and frustrated
murder. He claims self-defense and lawful performance of
duty.
A birthday party was being held for Danilo
Lapidante. A guest of his, Air Force and PSG man, Sgt
Suico was really excited and started firing shots into the
air with his armalite rifle. Policeman Catbagan heard the
shots, and since the election ban was at full effect that
time, he went to the house of Lapidante to investigate. No
one confessed to the shooting so Catbagan went home,
embarrassed.
Coincidentally,
before
Catbagan
got
to
Lapidantes house, Sgt. Suico and his friend Lacaden,
went back home to exchange the armalite with a pistol.
After a while, Catbagan, along with his friend
Fababier, returned to the party to investigate again. Suico
told him that the shots were just part of the celebration.
Suddenly, a piece of stone hurled from the
direction of the celebrants house landed on a tree and
thence to the body of Catbagan. Irritated and reacting
thereto, Catbagan directed Fababier to look for the one
who threw the stone.
The prosecution claimed that at that moment,
Sgt. Suico got out of the pedestrian steel gate and
extended his hand towards Catbagan in the street as he
introduced himself as being a PSG. Completely ignoring
the gesture of the latter, Catbagan drew out his .9mm
automatic pistol and with both hands holding the gun, fired
successively at Suico, who when hit stretched out his
hand, shouting Huwag (Dont) Pare. Despite this
Catbagan fired more shots at the victim who fell on the
pavement, bloodied and dying from mortal wounds.
As the shots were fired, Jun Lacaden who was
taking a nap on the front seat of the owner-type jeep
parked on the other side of the street was abruptly
47
lawful exercise.
These requisites are absent in this case. Appellant
was not performing his duties at the time of the shooting,
because the men he shot had not been indiscriminately
firing guns in his presence, as he alleges. The trial court
said that that Catbagan had no personal knowledge that it
was Suico who had been firing the Armalite.
At most, appellant was in the house of the
Lapidantes to determine who had fired the gunshots that
were heard by the neighborhood. But the fatal injuries that
he inflicted on the victims were not a necessary
consequence of the performance of his duty as a police
officer.
His presence at the scene of the incident should be
distinguished from his act of shooting them. His presence
was justified, his act of shooting was not. He was dutybound to find out who had fired the gun that day and to
maintain peace and order in the neighborhood. But his act
of shooting of the victims cannot be justified.
There is an important distinction between the
present case and People v. Cabrera. In the latter, the
disturbance had been created by the victim in the
presence of the accused, who therefore had the duty to
immediately intervene and subdue the former, who was
causing danger. In the present case, appellant had no
personal knowledge of who had fired the gunshots. Thus,
his duty at the time was simply to determine who was the
subject of the complaints of the residents of the village. It
was never shown, though, that the shooting was in
furtherance of or was a necessary consequence of his
performance of such duty.
To be sure, the right to kill an offender is not
absolute, and may be used only as a last resort, and
under circumstances indicating that the offender cannot
otherwise be taken without bloodshed. The law does not
clothe police officers with authority to arbitrarily judge the
necessity to kill. It must be stressed that the judgment and
discretion of police officers in the performance of their
duties must be exercised neither capriciously nor
oppressively, but within reasonable limits. In the absence
of a clear and legal provision to the contrary, they must act
in conformity with the dictates of a sound discretion, and
within the spirit and purpose of the law.
Issue 2: Is the defense of self-defense valid?
We should look at the circumstances of the shooting in the
case of each victim.
As to Suico, no valid self-defense because the
means employed were not reasonable, but he is granted a
mitigating circumstance because of lack of sufficient
provocation and the presence of unlawful aggression.
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at
least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person.
In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong,
48
PEOPLE V. DECENA
FACTS:
49
50
DECENA
claims
that
the
qualifying
circumstances that a girl should be eighteen
years of age and that the offender is "the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim"
were not alleged in the information. In his reply
brief, DECENA reiterates his plea for reduction of
the penalty for the reason that the information
charges only simple rape.
PEOPLE V. ELYBOY SO
FACTS:
51
52
Treachery:
Considering the number and nature of the wounds inflicted
by appellant on the victim, the testimony of the
prosecution witness Emy So that appellant unexpectedly
and suddenly attacked the victim from behind, and the fact
that appellant suffered not a single injury, we agree with
the trial court that the killing was attended by treachery.
This clearly illustrates that appellant, in the commission of
the crime, employed means, methods and form in its
execution which tended directly, and especially to ensure
its execution without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the victim might make.
Insanity:
53
54
55
56
57
PP VS GATUA
58
PEOPLE VS JAURIGUE
Facts: Defendant Avelina Jarigue(girl) and appellant
Amado Capino lived in the same barrio. Prior to the
incident at hand, Capino had been courting Jarigue to no
avail. A month prior to the incident, Capino stole a hanky
belonging to Jarigue bearing her nickname aveling while
I was being washed. On another night, Jarigue was
feeding a dog under her house, when Capino approached
her and spoke to her of his love, which she flatly refused,
and he thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her and
touched her boobs. She thereafter kept a long fan knife to
protect herself. A few days later, Capino climbed up the
house of Jarigue and entered the room where she was
sleeping. He felt her forehead with the intention of raping
her. She immediately screamed for help, which awakened
her parents and brought them to her side. Capino then
came out from where he was hiding, under the bed, and
kissed the hand of Jarigues father to beg for forgiveness.
Several days later on the fateful night, her family went to
the local church where it was quite bright. When Jarigue
was left alone in the bench while her father tended to
some business, Capino sat beside Jarigue and placed his
hand on top of her thigh. On observing this highly
improper conduct, Jaurigue stabbed Capino in the neck,
fatally causing a single wound from which he died.
Jaurigue surrendered without question.
Issue: WON defendant acted in the legitimate defense of
her honor and should be completely absolved from all
criminal liability.
Side issue: WON there were mitigating and aggravating
circumstances.
Held: She is not absolved from criminal liability. If the
defendant had killed Capino when he climbed up her
house to rape her, she could have been perfectly justified
in killing him. However, when the deceased sat beside
defendant on the same bench in a well lit chapel with
several people inside, including her own father and the
barrio lieutenant where there is no possibility of being
raped. She cannot be legally declared completely exempt
from criminal liability for fatally wounding the deceased
since the means employer by her in the defense of her
honor was evidently excessive.
On the side:
The fact that she voluntarily surrendered to the lieutenant
in the chapel and admitted to stabbing the deceased , and
the fact that she had acted in the immediate vindication of
a grave offense committed against her a few moments
before, and upon such provocation as to produce passion
or temporary loss of reason, should be considered as
mitigating circumstances in her favor.
The aggravating circumstance that the killing was
done in a place dedicated to religious worship cannot be
legally sustained as there is no evidence to show that
defendant had murder in her heart when she entered the
chapel. She should therefore be charged with homicide
without aggravating circumstances and with mitigating
circumstances.
59
PEOPLE v. IGNACIO
(There is treachery when the accused unexpectedly and
deliberately shoots an unarmed minor who is not in a
60
US V. AH CHONG
Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was
afraid of bad elements. One evening, before going to bed,
he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against
the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by
someone trying to open the door. He called out twice,
Who is there, but received no answer. Fearing that the
intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed & called out
again, If you enter the room I will kill you. But at that
precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been
placed against the door, & believing that he was being
attacked he seized a kitchen knife & struck & fatally
wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate.
Trial Court convicted him of homicide.
Issue: W/n Ah Chong was liable for the death of his
roommate.
Held: NO. Ah Chong must be acquitted because of
mistake of fact.
Ratio: Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to
be, he would have been justified in killing the intruder
under Article 11, par. 1, of the RPC, which requires, to
justify the act, that there be:
1. Unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed,
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it, and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
If the intruder was really a robber, forcing his way
into the room of Ah Chong, there would have been
unlawful aggression on the part of the intruder. There
would have been a necessity on the part of Ah Chong to
defend himself and/or his home. The knife would have
been a reasonable means to prevent or repel such
aggression. And Ah Chong gave no provocation at all.
Under A11 of the RPC, there is nothing unlawful in the
3.
4.
61
62
63
UBARRA V MAPALAD
FACTS: In a sworn letter-complaint dated 21 November
1991 and addressed to then Court Administrator, Josue N.
Bellosillo (Justice), complainant Atty. Manuel T. Ubarra, on
behalf of his client Juanito A. Calderon, charges Judge
Luzviminda Mapalad (Judge), the Presiding Judge of the
MTC of Pulilan, Bulacan, with grave misconduct, for
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, violation of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics and the failure to decide within
the mandated ninety-day period Criminal Case
entitled Peo v.Cruda which involves the charge of Grave
Threats. There is also another action for Grave Threats
likewise entitled Peo v Cruda. T
Calderon is the offended party in the both
criminal cases. He alleges in his affidavit that in the course
of the trial of the first criminal case, he noted that accused
Roberto Crude worked as a houseboy of the Judge. By
that time, he had already observed the Judge's partiality in
favor of the said accused.
The case was submitted for decision on 27
March 1990. On 9 August 1991, Crude married
respondent's youngest sister. It was the respondent
herself who solemnized that marriage at her office, as
evidenced by the marriage contract. Despite such
marriage, respondent did not inhibit herself from hearing
the case and instead proceeded to render and
promulgate, on 17 October 1991, a judgment acquitting
Cruda, her brother-in-law.
The answer to the letter-complaint, filed by the
respondent was devoted mostly to a narration of her
sincere and honest efforts to reform and rehabilitate
Roberto Cruda. She denies having knowingly rendered an
unjust judgment in favor of her brother-in- law because
she "was persuaded to dismiss the same not on account
that the guilt of Cruda was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt but by the very reason that both the private
complainant and the accused therein were in pari delicto."
She admits, however, that she decided the case beyond
ninety (90) days from the date it was submitted for
decision, and pleads for this Court's understanding,
leniency and compassion considering that a MTC Judge is
saddled not only with judicial functions, but quasi-judicial
task as well which are enough to drain most of his/her
energy.
On 10 September 1992 the Court referred the
case to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Malolos,
Bulacan who recommended that proper penalty be
imposed upon the respondent Judge.
ISSUE: WON the respondent have knowingly rendered an
unjust judgment.
HELD: Under the pari delicto doctrine, where the parties
to a controversy are equally culpable or guilty, they shall
have no action against each other, and it shall leave the
parties where it finds them. This doctrine finds expression
in the maxims ex dolo malo non oritur actio' and 'in pari
delicto potior est conditio defendentis.The Court found the
application of the pari delicto theory in a criminal case to
be strange, to say the least. In the first place, the rule on
pari delicto is a rule in civil law. It is principally governed
by Articles 1411 and 1412 of the Civil Code under the
Chapter on Void or Inexistent Contracts, and presupposes
a situation where the parties are in culpability similarly
situated. That this rule can by no means apply in a
criminal ease is evidenced by the aforesaid Article 1411
which provides in part that "When the nullity proceeds
from the illegality of the cause or object of the contract,
and the act constitutes a criminal offense, both parties
being in pari delicto, they shall have no action against
each other, and both shall be prosecuted." Secondly, in
view of the broader grounds of public policy, the rule may
not be invoked against the State. Thirdly, in the
prosecution of public crimes, the complainant is the State
while the private offended party is but a complaining
witness. Any criminal act perpetrated by the latter on the
occasion of the commission of the crime, or which may
have given rise to the criminal act imputed to the accused
is not the act or conduct of the State and can by no means
bind it under the doctrine of pari delicto. To rule otherwise
would be to establish a dangerous doctrine which would
irreparably weaken the very foundations of the criminal
justice system and frustrate the administration of justice.
Whatever wrongful act may have been committed by the
offended party may only be invoked to justify the
accused's own act or mitigate his liability.
In spite of all this, however, the respondent may
not necessarily be liable for rendering an unjust judgment
as there is no convincing evidence on record to show that
she knew such judgment to be unjust and that she
rendered the same with the conscious and deliberate
intent to commit an injustice. She could only be, as she is
hereby found, guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
The Court noted with grave concern the
respondent's revelation in her Answer that "she interceded
in the settlement of the cases pending against" Roberto
Cruda. By such admission, it is clear that the respondent
acted as counsel for the accused. It is therefore evident
that she is guilty of improper conduct, which could only
serve to diminish public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. Her behavior amounted to a
violation of Rule 2.01, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
The Court decided to dismiss the Judge from the
service with forfeiture of all benefits, except for the
64
65
CABANLIG VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Held:
No! Ty is guilty!
The only question of law raised is whether the
defense of uncontrollable fear is tenable to warrant Tys
exemption from criminal liability. For this exempting
circumstance to be invoked successfully the following
must concur: 1) existence of an uncontrollable fear; 2) fear
must be real and imminent; and 3) the fear of an injury is
greater than or at least equal to that committed.
The threat that caused the uncontrollable fear
must be of such gravity that an ordinary man would have
succumbed to it. It should be based on a real, imminent or
reasonable fear for ones life or limb. The threat must not
be speculative, fanciful or remote. A person invoking this
circumstance must show that the compulsion was so great
Prosections version:
A robbery occurred in Nueva Ecija but 4 days later, 3
suspects were caught. All items were recovered except
for a vase and a small radio. Valino, one of those
apprehended, knew where the location of the stolen items
were so 5 policemen decided to escort Valino to the place
where the stolen items were hidden. They rode a jeep.
While on their way, Valiano was able to grab one of the
polices M16 armalite. Cabanlig, who was behind Valino
inside the jeep, saw what happened and decided to fire
one shot at Valino, and after 3 seconds, fired another 4
consecutive shots. Valino did not fire a shot. The next
66
PEOPLE VS ULEP
Wapili, having a high fever and insensibly talking to
himself, was acting strangely in his home (nasisiraan na
ng ulo). His brother in law was trying to calm him down
but to know avail. Wapili locked himself in his room. Later
on, he went out naked and chased his brother in law
(Leydan). Leydan and neighbours tried to tie him with
rope but to no avail so he got loose in the village. Leydan
went to a policewoman to report the incident and while this
was happening, Wapili turned up in front of the
policewomans house to bang her vehicle so she called for
assistance. Later on, SPO1 Ulep and 2 other police
officers went to the scene where they saw Wapili armed
with a bolo and a rattan stool (sabi naman ng relatives ni
Wapili wala siyang dalang bolo). Ulep fired a warning shot
but Wapili charged towards them so Ulep shot him. Wapili
fell to the ground. Ulep came closer then pumped another
bullet to his head, literally blowing his brains out. Ulep:
self-defense and fulfilment of a duty.
Issue: w/n Ulep is liable for the death of Wapili
SC: YES. Liable for homicide
Before the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of
a duty under Art. 11, par. 5, of RPC may be
successfully invoked, the accused must prove the
presence of two (2) requisites, namely, that he acted
in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise
67
ORTEGA V. PEOPLE
Facts: Joemar Ortega raped AAA (name withheld), the
daughter of FFF who was a close friend of Joemars mom.
He was around 13 years old then and AAA was around 6
years old. During trial, the RTC and CA were not
impressed with the defense of denial and adjudged guilty
of rape.
The important issue arose during the pendency
of the case in the SC. In 2006 (while the case was still
pending), RA 9344 (The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act)
was passed. One of its provisions found in sec. 64 of the
act provides that ...cases of children fifteen (15) years old
and below at the time of the commission of the crime shall
immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred
to the appropriate local social welfare and development
officer. Thus, Ortega contends that he should not be
made to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua as he was
13 years old when the crime was committed.
The OSG argued that Ortega is no longer
covered by the provisions of Section 64 of RA 9344 since
as early as 1999, Ortega was convicted by the RTC and
the conviction was affirmed by the CA in 2001. RA 9344
was passed into law in 2006, and with Ortega now
approximately 25 years old, he no longer qualifies as a
child as defined by RA 9344. Moreover, the OSG claimed
that the retroactive effect of Section 64 of RA 9344 is
applicable only if the child-accused is still below 18 years
old as explained under Sections 67 and 68 thereof.
Issue: Should RA 9344 apply retroactively to Ortegas
case?
Held: Yes.
A retroactive application of RA 9344 should be
given to Ortega pursuant to the well-entrenched principle
in criminal law - favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa
restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to the
accused are given retroactive effect.
Furthermore, the deliberations of the Senate with
regard to RA 9344 show an intent for it to apply
retroactively. As stated by Senator Santiago even after
final conviction if, in fact, the offender is able to prove that
at the time of the commission of the offense he is a minor
68
Llave vs People
FACTS: Neil Llave, a 12 year old boy, was charged with
raping Debbielyn, a 7 year old girl, in Pasay City. After
school, Debbielyn proceeded home, changed her clothes
and went to her mothers store to bring home unsold quail
eggs. On her way, she passed by a vacant house adjacent
to Teofistos house (their neighbor). She was suddenly
pulled by petitioner to a pile of hollow blocks; forced her to
lay down on the cement. Petitioner removed his and the
victims clothes. He lay on top of the victim, started kissing
her and inserted his penis inside the victims vagina. The
victim resisted to no avail.
Thereafter Teofisto heard the victims cries and
went out to see what has happened. At that point, Llave
took off.
The parents of the victim, upon knowing the
incident, found petitioner in the latters grandparents
house. Llave was arrested by the tanod.
The victim was brought to the Child Protection
Unit of the PGH where Dr. Castillo found that no injury
was found on the hymen and perineum, there was a
scanty yellowish discharge between the labia minora.
There was also a fresh abrasion of the perineal skin at 1
oclock position near the anus which can only be caused
by a blunt object such as erect penis or finger. The
findings, according to the Dr., were consistent with the
claim that victim was sexually abused.
The RTC and the CA both convicted petitioner of
the crime of rape. Both courts found that petitioner, by his
conducts during the incident, acted with discernment.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner acted with discernment
HELD: Yes he did! Article 12, par3 of the RPC exempts
from criminal liability persons who are over 9 years and
under 15 UNLESS he acted with discernment. The ratio
for the exemption is the absence of intelligence which is
an essential part of a felony whether by dolo or culpa.
Intelligence is the power to determine the morality of
human acts and to distinguish licit from illicit acts.
PEOPLE OF
VALLEDOR
THE
PHILIPPINES
vs.
ENRICO
A.
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
TAMBOONG V. PEOPLE
Facts: After picking up his bolo from the blacksmith,
appellant went home late in the afternoon where he saw a
group of people including deceased drinking gin near his
house. He then requested the group to refrain from
making any noise, he then proceeded to his house and
79
80
PEOPLE v. TAMI
81
Other stuff:
1. Tami said it was impossible for both of them to have
had multiple sexual intercourse with Amelita in such short
a time (around 2 hours) Court said there is nothing
incredible about this, given their physical built and age
2. Tami claims the court erred in imposing the penalty of 5
reclusion pereptuas, at most it should only have been 2
counts of forcible abduction with rape. The SC said that
he was guilty of 1 forcible abduction with rape and 4
counts of rape pursuant to People v. Jose: Where the four
accused forcibly abducted Maggie de la Riva and each of
them raped her, the SC held that even while the first act of
rape was being performed, the crime of forcible abduction
had already been consummated, so that each of the three
succeeding crimes of the same nature cannot legally be
considered as still connected with the abduction. In other
words, they should be detached and considered
independently of the of forcible abduction and therefore,
the former can no longer be complexed with the latter.
VINDICATION
1. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. JESUS G. RUIZ and ALFREDO GUNO,
accused appellants.
FACTS:
Morning: Accused Ruiz [VISLU (a labor union)
president] fought with policemen because of the latter
allowed civilians to use the Honda the former
donated. He called the policemen stupid so medyo
nagkainitan. Ruiz left.
82
BACABAC V. PEOPLE
Facts: Hernani Quidato (the victim) was at a dance with
Eduardo Selibio (Eduardo) and Melchor Selibio (Melchor).
And so were Jonathan Bacabac (Jonathan) and Edzel
Talanquines (Edzel).
Jonathan and Edzel left the dance hall. Quidatos
group also left. They encountered Jonathan and Edzel.
The two groups had a misunderstanding.
On his way home, Jesus Delfin Rosadio (Jesus),
noticed a commotion. He soon saw that Melchor was
"hugging" Edzel, and later "tying" Jonathan "with his
hands." He then saw the victim hit Edzel with a "stick." He
thus told the victim and his companions that Edzel is the
son of Councilor Jose Talanquines, Jr. (Jose), whereupon
Eduardo told Jesus to go away for they might shoot him.
Jesus left and went to Edzel's house to report to his father
what he had witnessed. Meanwhile, Edzel and Jonathan
escaped.
The victim and his companions then headed for
home. They met Pat. Ricardo Bacabac (Bacabac), with
Edzel and Jonathan who are Bacabacs nephews; Also
there were Edzel's father, Jose, Edzels mother, and his
two sisters. Bacabac and Jose were carrying M-16
armalites, while Jonathan and Edzel had a piece of wood
and a revolver, respectively.
Jesus then pointed to the victim and his
companions as the ones who had manhandled Jonathan
and Edzel. The victim apologized, explaining that he and
his companions mistook Jonathan and Edzel for other
persons. Jesus blurted out, however, "You are just
bragging that you are brave. You are only bullying small
children. Bacabac, at that instant, fired his armalite into
the air, while Jose fired his armalite ("as if spraying his rifle
from right to left") at the victim and Eduardo, even hitting
Jonathan in the thigh as he (Jonathan) "was on the move
to strike Quidato with a piece of wood." Eduardo fell. And
so did Quidato who was in a kneeling position, and as he
was raising his hands in surrender, Jose shot him again.
83
84
85
86
DANAFRATA VS PEOPLE
Accused Danafrata and his wife were having an argument
in the streets when the latter hit the former with a plastic
chair while Danafrata hit her back (slugging match).
Accused ran home then came back again, kicking the
neighbours he encountered. Because of his behaviour, he
was mauled by 3 neighbors so he had no choice but to go
home again to get a knife. He went back to retaliate. He
saw the father of one of those who mauled him so
accused challenged him to a fight. However, he spotted
one of the 3 and so he stabbed Alfredo in the chest.
Accuseds version: inaway nga siya ng asawa niya so
napahiya siya sa mga tao sa paligid niya. He was so
humiliated he kicked a table but because of this, 3
SC: meron
Passion and obfuscation exist when
(1) there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce
such a condition of the mind, and
(2) the said act which produced the obfuscation was not
far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity.
There is passion and obfuscation when the
crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst
of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts,
or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to
overcome reason.
In this case it was established that petitioner
and his wife had a violent altercation and that
petitioner was mauled by his neighbors after he
kicked some of them for laughing at him. These
events and circumstances prior to the killing of
Alfredo Gonzales could have caused unusual
outbursts of passion and emotion on petitioners part.
These resulted in the tragic stabbing of the victim thus
entitling petitioner to the mitigating circumstance
analogous to passion and obfuscation.
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
PEOPLE V. VENTURA
Spouses Jaime and Aileen Bocateja were sleeping in their
room. At around 2am, Jaime was roused from his sleep by
accused Felix Ventura (armed with firearm) and Arante
Flores (with a bladed weapon) who were able to stealthily
enter the house by cutting a hole in the kitchen door.
Ventura pointed the gun at Jaimes face, announce a hold
up and hit Jaime on the head. The 2 then struggled for the
gun, and since Jaime was winning, Ventura called on
Flores to stab Jaime. Flores did stab him 3 times. When
wife Aileen saw her husband in danger, she cried for help
and Flores stabbed her 4 times (she died eventually). The
spouses niece who was sleeping upstairs, ran downstairs
and recognized Flores as a former employee of the
spouses butcher shop. She called on their neighbors for
help. Ventura and Flores then fled.
The police intercepted the accused and from
them recovered a .38 caliber revolver with bullets and a
87
PEOPLE V. SALAZAR
FACTS: The accused is a moro native of Zamboanga.
One morning, he invited his common-law wife to go with
him to gather nipa for the repair of their house. Romana
then arrived and invited Maxima to accompany her to her
house to get palay. Because of the invitation of Romana,
Maxima refused to go with her husband, which aroused
his anger. At that time, the accused already entertained
the suspicion that his wife was having illicit relation with
Fortunato, the husband of Romana, to the extent that he
believed that the child his wife was bearing was the result
of such illicit relation. This incident started the accused on
a killing rampage leaving in its wake sixteen dead and
some wounded.
ISSUE: W/N the accused may avail of mitigating
circumstance of obfuscation arising from jealousy? NO.
HELD: Such cannot be invoked in favour of the
accused considering that his relationship with his
common-law wife was illegitimate. In addition, many
days had already passed from the discovery of the
alleged infidelity of his common-law wife before he
88
PEOPLE V. LOPEZ
Issue: Can those mitigating circumstances be claimed by
Ruben?
Ruling: Not for Passion and Obfuscation, only for
Voluntary Surrender and Voluntary Plea of Guilty
89
until Sola decided to leave Hicks. Sola found another afroamerican lover in Wallace Current. When Hicks learned
about this he went to Currents house to confront the two.
While conversing, Hicks said God damn, Ive made up my
mind as he was about to grab his revolver. Current got
hold of Hicks hand but the latter slapped it away. Current
ran inside a room just as Hicks drew his revolver and shot
Sola, who was close by in the sala of the house, on the left
side of the breast. Sola died. Hicks was charged and
found guilty of murder, sentenced to death.
Issue: W/N there is the mitigating circumstance of passion
and obfuscation?
Held: None!
Generic aggravating circumstance of premeditation
SC held that the crime was attended with the aggravating
circumstance of premeditation because it found, according
to one of the witnesses, that before the crime, the witness
and Hicks were drinking and the latter, while cleaning a
revolver said that Solas time had come. SC found that
Hicks deliberately and after due reflection had resolved to
kill the woman who had left him for another man, and in
order to accomplish his perverse intention with safety,
notwithstanding the fact that he was already provided with
a clean and well-prepared weapon and carried other
loaded cartridges besides those already in his revolver, he
entered the house, greeting everyone courteously and
conversed with his victim, in what appeared to be a proper
manner, disguising his intention and claiming her by his
apparent repose and tranquility, doubtless in order to
successfully accomplish his criminal design, behaving
himself properly as he had planned to do beforehand.
Absence of mitigating circumstance
As against the two foregoing aggravating circumstances
no mitigating circumstances is present, not even that
mentioned in paragraph 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code,
to wit loss of reason and self-control produced by
jealousy as alleged by the defense, inasmuch as the
only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility
for the loss of self-control are such as originate from
legitimate feelings, not those which arise from
vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions.
90
ABUSE
OF
CONFIDENCE
AND
OBVIOUS
UNGRATEFULNESS - There is nothing to show that the
assailant and his common-law wife reposed in one
another any special confidence that could be abused, or
any gratitude owed by one to the other that ought to be
respected, and which would bear any relation, or
connection, with the crime committed. None is inferable
from the fact that the accused was much older than his
victim, or that he was penniless while she was able to earn
a living and occasionally gave him money, since both lived
together as husband and wife. Neither is it shown that the
accused took advantage of any such special confidence in
order to carry out the crime.
ISSUE:
HELD:
TREACHERY there was no treachery. True, Alicia may
have been stabbed at the back yet this is but a
continuation of earlier stabbing which Bello inflicted in the
breast, hypogastric region and left wrist. The back stab
was inflicted when Alicia was about to run.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION there was no evident premeditation. Bello carried the Balisong not because he
planned on killing Alicia but because he always brings it
for protection. The killing was a spur of the moment.
SUPERIOR STRENGTH there was no superior strength.
Bello was an old man and invalid [baldado] while Alicia
was in the prime of her youth, and not infirm. The facts are
not sufficient to draw a comparison of their relative
strength.
NIGHTIME although the killing was done at night, it was
not purposely sought or taken advantage of by Bello. In
fact, Marings bar was well lit.
Pelonia v People
91
AGGRAVATING
92
mitigating
HELD:
Aggravating
93
PEOPLE V. PANSENSOY
Facts: Accused-Pansensoys legally-married wife-Analie
had an affair with the victim-Reyes, a jeepney driver. The
victim-Reyes and wife-Analie were renting a house in
Rizal and this was the place where the accusedPansensoy caught the cheaters and is also where victimReyes was shot in the head at close range by the
Accused-Pansensoy.
Accused-Pansensoy learned of the house the
cheaters were hiding because of his friend Bisaya who
told him that he saw the cheaters together with accusedpansensoys son board a jeepney on their way to the
house. Bisaya accompanied accused to the house.
Accused knocked on the door of the house but
he was not able to enter because wife-analie prevented
him. Instead he sat on a bench outside the house.
Victim-Reyes went out and confronted the
accused. Accused asked victim-reyes whether he loved
Analie. Reyes answered Yes. Accused asked victimreyes whether he was single. Reyes answered Yes. At this
point, although not stated in the case, AccusedPansensoy must have pointed a .38 caliber to the head of
victim-reyes. [BTW, accused is a security guard] AccusedPansensoy counted one to three. ONE TWO BANG!
Victim-Reyes sprawled on the ground and died.
Issue: 1. Murder or Homicide?
2. Is the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation present?
Held:
CRIME - SC said HOMICIDE because there was
no treachery or evident premeditation. Further, the crime
is mitigated by passion and obfuscation.
1. Before discussing why there is no treachery or
premeditation. The mitigating of passion and obfuscation
must first be discussed. In order to be entitled to the
94
of
voluntary
95
PEOPLE V. BASITE
Voluntary Surrender | Justice Bellosillo
96
People v. Diva
FACTS:
97
98
ISSUE/S:
(1) w/n DIVA Spouses are entitled to mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender? No.
(2) w/n there was conspiracy between DIVA Spouses? No.
(1) MITIGATING CIRCUSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER
After the incident. Maximo Diva left the scene thereof,
went to the municipality of Poro, a neighboring town,
where Dr. Olitres lived to have his wounds treated by the
said doctor, and after the treatment of his wounds, he
surrendered to the chief of police of the said town. The
trial court considered this act of Maximo Diva as flight,
and, therefore, indicative of guilt.
To be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender, the law does not require that the
perpetrator must give himself up to the authorities in the
municipality where the offense was committed. All that
the law requires is for the offender to surrender to the
authorities to save the government the trouble and
expense of looking for him in order to arrest him.
Appellant Maximo Diva surrendered to the authorities
the day following the incident. He did not wait for the
authorities to arrest him. Thus, an accused who
presented himself in the municipal building five days
after the commission of the crime to post the bond for
his temporary liberty was credited with the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. The fact that a
warrant of arrest had already been issued is not a bar
to the consideration of this mitigating circumstance
because the law does not require that the surrender
be prior to the order of arrest.
By parity of reasoning, therefore, appellant
Maximo Diva's voluntary surrender to the chief of police of
the municipality of Poro should be considered to mitigate
his criminal liability because the law does not require
him to surrender to the authorities of the municipality
of San Francisco where the offense was committed.
(2) PARTICIPATION OF CESARIA DIVA
Cesaria Diva was on her six or seven months pregnancy
at the time of the incident, and in her condition then
obtaining, it is rather doubtful that she would take such
active part, as narrated by the witnesses for the
99
PEOPLE v. QUIMPO
FACTS: Accused-appellant Jimmy Dela Cruz y Quimpo
was charged with and found guilty of the crime of murder
and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The Information
alleged that on or about the 1st day of September, 1998 in
the evening, in Barangay Tigayon, Municipality of Kalibo,
Province of Aklan, Republic of the Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, while armed with a knife, with treachery and with
intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and stab one Arnulfo
Inocencio, inflicting upon the latter physical injuries.
Two eyewitnesses, Jovelyn Felizario, cousin of
Arnulfo, and Glen Cipriano testified that in the evening of
September 1, 1998, several visitors were in her house at
Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan since it was the birthday of her
brother, Jonel. At around 11:00 that evening, Arnulfo
Inocencio, appellant Jimmy dela Cruz, and brothers
Glenn, Gilbert and Greg Cipriano were having a drinking
session. Arnulfo played a guitar while appellant sang
along. Afterwards, appellant requested Arnulfo to give the
guitar to Gilbert. Arnulfo obliged and rose to hand the
guitar to Gilbert. When Arnulfo returned to his seat,
appellant suddenly drew his knife from his waist and
stabbed Arnulfo. According to the witness, appellant then
pointed at Arnulfo and said, "There, he is already dead."
The witness added she was just two meters away from the
victim and the appellant when the stabbing incident
happened.
Appellant admits that he killed the victim, Arnulfo
Inocencio. However, he avers he did it in self-defense. He
claims that it was Arnulfo who attacked him first and that
he had no recourse but to stab Arnulfo.
ISSUE: W/N Quimpo acted in self-defense NO.
HELD: By invoking self-defense, the burden is placed
upon appellant to prove clearly and convincingly the
elements thereof: unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel the aggression, and lack of sufficient
provocation on his part. Although all the three elements
must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful
aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be
successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. In
this case, appellant's testimony miserably failed to prove
the existence of unlawful aggression. He claims that it was
the victim who, without provocation on his part, suddenly
attacked him. To defend himself, he was constrained to
pull out the knife from his waist and stab the victim on the
chest. The one-inch long wound in appellant's left hand
was too superficial to support his claim that it was inflicted
while he was parrying the thrust of the victim. The mere
fact that he was wounded does not prove indubitably his
claim that he acted in self-defense. Nor that the victim and
not he was the aggressor. Note that appellant did not
present a knife during the trial to bolster his case. The
witnesses for the prosecution denied that the victim was
armed with a knife and, indeed, none was recovered from
the scene of the crime.
* The issue on voluntary surrender was not fully discussed
in the case. It was only mentioned at the end of the case,
as follows:
The trial court was correct when it considered
the mitigating circumstance of Quimpos voluntary
surrender to the barangay captain. Appellant
spontaneously and unconditionally placed himself in
the hands of the authorities, and saved them the time
and effort attendant to a search. The testimony of
barangay captain Isberto and the police officer on this
point was not contradicted by the prosecution. Thus, we
find that the trial court correctly imposed the minimum of
the penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder
which isreclusion perpetua.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
NOTE: Know crimpro provisions
PEOPLE VS CALPITO
FACTS: Calpito was charged with Robbery with Homicide.
Initially, Calpito entered a plea of not guilty, but after
reinvestigation and re-arraignment, changed his plea to
guilty. Court then charged Calpito of Murder instead of
robbery with Homicide due to prosecutions failure to
sufficiently prove robbery.
(Side facts for side issue) Calpito argued that
since he was a minor (16 years old) when he committed
the crime, although his birth certificate could not be
verified, he should be credited with mitigating
circumstance of minority. RTC didnt consider this and no
mitigating circumstance was applied.
ISSUE: (related to topic hinde expressly sinabi but I just
assumed given the topic) W/N Calpito should be credited
with mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty
even though he pleaded not guilty on the first arraignment.
YES.
RATIO:
The requisites of this circumstance are:
(1) that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;
100
PEOPLE v. TAKBOBO
Facts: Ruben Takbobo, a middle aged fisherman, was
charged with killing his wife, Lucia, by hacking and
stabbing the latter with a knife and bolo. Takbobo went to
the authorities and told them what happened.
Their daughter testified in court that Takbobo had
the propensity for inexplicable resort to violence against
members of his family (one of her fingers was cut and the
third finger of her older sister was split by a bolo wielded
by their father).
Takbobo said that the reason he killed his wife
was because he caught her sleeping with another man.
He arrived home at 3am from his fishing activity when he
his wife sleeping with their neighbor. He tried to kill him by
stabbing him but his wife pushed the man who
immediately jumped out the window. As a result, his wife
was hit by his thrust. He then found out that his wife had
no panty. He tried searching but failed to find the other
man. He immediately reported the incident to the police
though he was not able to execute his affidavit as he was
very confused.
Takbobo entered a plea of guilty. The RTC
found him guilty of parricide but did not appreciate the
mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation,
voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilty. Thus, this
appeal.
Issue: Did the court err in not considering the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty - YES
PEOPLE OF THE
MAGALLANES
[Doctrine: plea of Guilt]
PHILIPPINES vs.
GREGORIO
101
102
PP v. HILARIO
Facts: One afternoon, accused Rodrigo Hilario, together
with his brother Rodolfo, and someone who appears to be
their cumpadre (whose name is uknown) went to the
house of Danilo Manzanares. Manzanares was a watch
repairman and the Hilarios, (Manzanares uncles because
they were the siblings of Danilos mom) visited him to have
the bracelet of Rodolfos watch restored. While Danilo was
busy fixing the bracelet, the three were conversing nearby.
He inadvertently heard Rodrigo saying, Pare, nandyan na
ang taong titirahin natin, si Berong. In response, Rodolfo
remarked, Padilim tayo. After 30 minutes, the three left
and proceeded to the Barangay Hall which is only two
houses away.
At about 8:30 in the evening, Danilo went to
Mang Jacks store. There, he saw Berong and the victim
Carlos Reyes in front of the store squatting and talking to
each other. Both were wearing white shirts. A little later,
Berong removed his white shirt. Fate must be smiling on
him that night because uncannily, this innocent act would
later save his skin at the expense of Carlos.
At this juncture, Danilo saw Rodrigo, Rodolfo and
their cumpadre approaching from the other side of the
103
104
105
106
PEOPLE V. VILLAMOR
Around dusk, brothers Jerry and Jelord Velez were on
their way home on board a motorcycle after having dinner
at a friends house. From behind them appeared a
speeding motorcycle, which they ignored. Suddenly,
gunshots rang out from behind them and they abruptly
turned towards the direction of the gunfire. The lights of
their motorbike fell on the attackers, and they clearly
identified the latter to be PO3 Renato Villamor and Brgy.
Capt. Jessie Maghilom (both accused). The assailants
fired at them a second time and then fled. Jerry the driver
sustained wounds in the abdomen and elbow, Jelord died
from the first gunshot (didnt say which part).
Villamor and Maghilom were indicted for murder
(Jelord) with treachery and frustrated murder (Jerry) but
Maghilom remained at large. Villamor posted an alibi (he
was then acting as a security escort for Mayor Yap). Not
so important: the Velezes and the Yaps are political rivals.
Trial court: guilty of murder with aggravating circ
of taking advantage of his public position. Death. For
frustrated murder also with the aggravating circ of taking
advantage of public position as a policeman, guilty.
Reclusion temp, max.
Ruling: SC agrees with trial court ruling that there was
treachery BUT NO ABUSE OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY.
There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against persons, employing means,
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make. The two conditions for the same are present
(1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender
consciously adopted the particular means, method or form
of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is
the swift, sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor
PEOPLE V. TABION
Where the information charging accused with rape failed
to allege minority and relationship (of victim to accused),
he cannot be convicted of qualified rape. Simple rape only,
as proved in trial.
Regin Tabion (16) was at home weaving baskets when
her dad, Dominador Tabion called her to wash plates. The
latter was her only companion. Tabion then told her to go
into their room, lie on the bed and remove her panty.
Tabion had with him a large hunting knife which he used
to threaten his daughter. He successfully raped his
daughter and warned the latter to not tell anyone about the
incident, otherwise, hed kill her and the whole family. This
went on 10 times, until she couldnt bear the pain
anymore. She confessed to her mom and a case was
filed. Tabion denied having raped his daughter and said
that his wife merely had a grudge on him because he was
an NPA.
Trial court ruling: guilty of qualified rape. Penalty
of death.
107
FORTUNA V. PEOPLE
GR 135784, December 15, 2000
(Was given the wrong citation, so I just googled for
this case instead.)
108
PEOPLE V. DE MESA
109
PEOPLE VS SAMUDIO
FACTS: Herein accused appellant Antonio Samudio was
with three friends having a drinking spree in his place
when they decided to transfer to Ely Samudios house.
While they were drinking there, the victim, Baldomero San
Juan, Barangay Captain, passed by and was offered some
drinks by Antonios group. Thereafter, Benjamin Samudio,
uncle of Antonio, whose house was located approximately
20 meters from Elys house, heard a commotion. When he
went there, Benjamin saw Antonio stab Baldomero twice
with a knife locally known as palas. While Antonio was
stabbing Baldomero, two of his companions held the
victim by his shoulder. Benjamin tried to intervene but to
no avail.
Antonios group went out of the house and when
he passed by the house of a barangay councilman,
Antonio told the latter that he had killed Baldomero.
Meanwhile, Ruben San Juan, the victims son,
rushed to Elys house upon knowing the incident.
Suddenly, Antonio came and threatened Ruben. Antonio
left Elys house again and proceeded to the house of
another barriomate where he asked that the members of
the CAFGU be called so he can surrender.
In his defense, Antonio admitted sole
responsibility but interposed self-defense. According to
him, Baldomero confronted him about a work which he
(Antonio) was contracted for by Baldomero; that Antonio
claimed he was not paid for such work and that Baldomero
suddenly hit him prompting him to get hold of the knife and
stab Baldomero.
Trial Court convicted Samudio of the crime of
murder and sentenced to reclusion perpatua.
It is alleged in the Information that the killing was
qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of
110
and
mitigating
HELD:
TREACHERY there was no treachery. When treachery
is alleged, the manner of the attack must be proven (to
show that the manner of attack was done to ensure the
victims defenselessness). In this case, the only
eyewitness to the stabbing, Benjamin, did not see the
initial stage and particulars of the attack
EVIDENT PRE-MEDITATION the court simply said that
the 3 requisites of evident premeditation was not present
(bahala na kayo sa 3 elements nay un, hahaba lang
digest)
SUPERIOR STRENGTH although the accusedappellants were many, number alone does not determine
superior strength especially when the aggressors took no
advantage of their combined strength such as in this case.
DISREGARD OF THE OFFENDED PARTY DUE TO HIS
RANK this cannot be appreciated. Although
Baldomero was a barangay captain, there is no
showing that Antonio deliberately intended to
disregard or insult the respect due to Baldomero. It is
essential that the deliberate intent to offend or insult
the rank of the victim must be shown. The aggravating
circumstance of with insult or in disregard due to rank
is appreciated against an accused only when there is
proof of fact of disregard and deliberate intent to
insult the rank of the victim.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER all the requisites were
satisfied. Antonio was not yet arrested; he surrendered
before persons in authority (CAFGU) and his surrender
was voluntary
OTHER ISSUES:
SELF DEFENSE there was no indication that there was
an unlawful aggression on the part of Baldomero.
CONSPIRACY conspiracy was not proved. Benjamin,
the only witness of the prosecution, did not witness the
initial stage of the killing from which community of design
among the accused can be deduced. At most, the friends
of Antonio can only be convicted as accomplices.
111
FACTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ISSUES
a) Whether or not guilt has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt; YES
b) Whether the court erred in appreciating the
aggravating circumstance of insult or in disregard
of the respect due the offended party on account
of her rank and age YES
HELD:
a) Nerio: unbelievable that Vilma can identify him due to
her faulty eyesight and that even if he used to be her
112
dwelling
113
PEOPLE V DANIEL
Facts: 13 year old Margarita Paleng filed a complaint
against Amado Daniel alias Amado Ato for the crime of
rape. On September 20, 1965, Margarita, a native of Mt.
Province, arrived in Baguio City from Tublay in a Dangwa
bus. She was then en route to her boarding house in
Guisad as she was a highschool student at the Baguio
Eastern Highschool. While she was waiting inside the
bus, the accused Daniel came and started molesting her
by inquiring her name and getting hold of her bag. She
did not allow the latter and instead called the attention of
the bus driver and the conductor but was merely shrugged
off by them. It seemed that they were also afraid of the
accused. Despite the rain, she left the bus and went to
ride in a jeep parked some 100 meters away. The
accused followed her and rode and sat beside her. When
Margarita alighted in Guisad, she was again followed by
the accused. Reaching her boarding house, she opened
the door and was about to close it when the accused
dashed in and closed the door behind him. He pulled a
dagger 8 inches long and threatened her saying, If you
talk, I will kill you. Because of her fear, Margarita fell
silent. She was then forced to lie down with the accused
placing a handkerchief in her mouth and holding the
dagger to her neck. Her attempts to flee were to no avail
as she was only 4 ft and 8 inches tall and 95 lbs while
Daniel was 5 ft, 7 inches tall and weighed 126 lbs. The
accused was successful in having carnal knowledge of
Margarita. Thereafter she lost consciousness. When she
recovered, Daniel had already gone.
For his defense, Daniel asserts that he and
Margarita have known each other since 1963 and this was
in fact the second time he had carnal knowledge of her.
Also, he alleges that he promised to marry Margarita and
114
PEOPLE V SAPINOSO
FACTS: Yolanda Partida, a 15-year old barrio lass was
hired by Diosdado Castillo to work as a stay-in laundress
at his residence in Tagig. Castillo's residence,
parenthetically, also housed a shop for his stained glass
business.
At around 6 P.M. while Yolanda was lying on a
folding bed located near the door of the shop, three men,
later identified as Domingo Quila and accused-appellants
Noel Sapinoso and David Recreo, suddenly barged in.
Yolanda stood up at the intrusion, only to be boxed by
Sapinoso, causing her to lose consciousness.
When Yolanda came to, she found Sapinoso on
top of her. He was then inserting his penis inside her
vagina, all the while poking a knife at her. Meanwhile, the
two others stood by the side of the bed and watched.
Yolanda felt pain at Sapinoso's insertion of his penis. After
a while, she sensed Sapinoso ejaculate, which she
described as "pinutok po niya yung kanya." Recreo and
Quila took their turns. The three then departed.
Yolanda immediately reported the incident to her
employer, Castillo, when the latter arrived later that night.
They went to the Tagig police station to report the incident.
The three accused were arrested after Yolanda identified
them as her rapists
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.
FRANCISCO M. SANTIAGO alias "FRANCIS," appellant.
FACTS: Spouses Francisco and Tess Santiago rented a
room in the house under the care of Purita Sotero, in
Baler, Aurora. They had a baby. Purita occupied another
room in the house. The neighboring house belonged to
spouses Jaime and Marissa Nisperos, who sold liquor and
lambanog. When Francis (accused) failed to pay rent,
Purita got had the matter placed in a police blotter, which
infuriated the accused Francis. One night, Santiago went
to the Nisperos house, eyes all red and he was angry with
115
116
PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO
117
PEOPLE v. TAO
FACTS: Amy de Guzman was tending a video rental
shop owned by her employer and cousin Ana Marinay.
Accused Alexander Tao, a relative of Anas husband
Gerry Marina, arrived at the shop and asked Amy what
time Gerry and Ana would be coming home to which Amy
replied that she did not know. Tao kept going in and out
of the shop and on the last time that he went inside the
shop, he jumped over the counter of the shop to where
Amy was and seized the latter by placing one of his arms
around Amys neck, while his other hand held a knife
which he poked at her neck. Amy started shouting for help
the volume of the karaoke drowned her cries of help.
Tao then dragged Amy to the kitchen of the shop where,
at knife point, he ordered the latter to undress and he
thereafter started raping her. However, while Tao was
raping Amy, somebody knocked at the door of the shop
prompting the former to stop what he was doing and
ordered Amy to put on her clothes. He told her to go
upstairs to the second floor to change clothes as he will be
taking her with him. Amy then pleaded with Tao to just
take anything inside the shop and to spare her life, to
which Tao replied no, I will not leave you here alive.
After a while and upon Amys pleading, Tao put
down his knife and while he was kissing Amy, the latter
got hold of the knife which she surreptitiously concealed
under the stairs. Suddenly, Tao became violent and
banged Amys head on the wall causing the latter to lose
consciousness. When she regained consciousness she
found herself and Tao inside the toilet of the shop and
the latter again banged her head, this time on the toilet
bowl, several times causing Amy to again lose
consciousness. Thereafter, Tao went upstairs and looted
the place of valuables belonging to Amys employer, Ana.
Amy, herself lost her ring, bracelet and wristwatch during
the incident in question.
Tao, while admitting to robbing the shop, denied
raping Amy.
118
PEOPLE VS DACIBAR
Facts: Welda was sitting behind their bed near her
husband, Josue(soon to die), who was sitting at the end of
the bed. Suddenly, there was an explosion followed by
sounds of footsteps. When Welda looked through their
window she saw appellant coming out from under their
house, stooping and carrying a long fire arm. Seeing as
her husband was shot she shouted for help. Josue soon
died thereafter. It appears that her husband was shot from
under the house.
Issue: WON the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is to
be considered in imputing liability
Held: yes
Ratio: Although the triggerman fired the shot from
outside the house, his victim was inside. For the
circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is not
necessary that the accused should have actually entered
the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense, it is
enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house,
although he assailant may have devised means to
perpetrate the assault from outside the house. Thus, in
case at bar, although the attack was made from outside
the house, below the floor of the house, nevertheless, the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling may be considered
as attending the shooting. As in fact the victim was hit
inside his own house.
PEOPLE VS SESPENE
FACTS: Enerio was went to the field to tend his carabao.
When he got home and just as he was about to step on
the first rung of the ladder, Manglilog suddenly
appeared and attacked Enerio from the rear with a bolo,
striking both his shoulders. Enerio faced Mangilog, who
circumstance
of
dwelling
US v. IBANEZ
(Dwelling as aggravating circumstance in adultery)
Facts and Ruling
Carmen Ibanez and Felix Alviola are lawfully married.
Alviola filed a case of adultery against Ibanez and her
paramour, Pacifico Manalili. It was proven that the two
had intimate relations:
1. They were alone together on a dry river bed in the
shade of bamboo trees
2. Paramour was accustomed to frequent the home of the
spouses when husbandwas absent. During these visits,
the doors and windows of the house were closed
3. Wife often absented herself from her home
4. On one occasion, husband followed her and saw her
with paramour. The two separated ways upon perceiving
his presence. When he asked where his wife had been,
she said she had been to the dressmakers
5. On another occasion, husband surprised paramour
going down the stairs of the conjugal home and that
paramour immediately mounted his bike and rode away.
It was proven that wife and paramour had sexual
intercourse in the conjugal home twice. Husband was
notified and went to his house with a policeman and
surprised paramour hiding behind the kitchen door. Wife
denied the presence of paramour despite being asked
who the bicycle outside the door belonged to.
The trial court found the defendants guilty of
adultery as principals by direct participation. SC affirmed
but considered the aggravating circumstance of the crime
119
120
PEOPLE V. OSTI
Facts: Spouses Ponciano Onato and Edita Onato lived
with their 4-year old daughter Beverly in Sto. Nio, Samar.
Ponciano was a fisherman and a farmer but was
employed by Tito Soria in his buy-and-sell of fish
business.
Roberto Ostia, a co-worker of Ponciano,
resided in the poblacion of Sto. Nio. Rufo Legaspi, a
carpenter and a Barangay Tanod, was a neighbor of
Ponciano.
On May 13, 1995, at about 7:00 p.m., Rufo was
seated near his house and resting before retiring for the
evening. Then, Rufo saw Roberto, with Beverly on his
right shoulder, walking towards the poblacion. Robertos
left hand was holding the right hand of Mary Donoso, a 9year old playmate of Beverly. The trio was in animated
conversation on their way towards the poblacion.
After an hour or so, Edita noticed that Beverly
had not returned to their house. She looked for her. Rufo
told Edita that he saw Beverly perched on the shoulder of
Roberto on their way towards the poblacion. Then,
Roberto passed by. However, Beverly was no longer with
him. Puzzled, Edita asked Roberto where Beverly was.
Instead of responding, Roberto fled.
Rufo, who witnessed the incident, advised Edita
to report the incident to the police authorities. Edita
rushed back home and woke up Ponciano. She told her
husband that Beverly had been taken by Roberto and that
Beverly had not yet returned home. The couple rushed
from their house and reported the incident to the police
authorities. With the help of their neighbors and police
officers Toribio and Espino, the couple looked for Beverly
but failed to locate her. They resumed their search the
next day. They found Beverly sprawled in a grassy portion
below a copra kiln about 120 meters away from the house
of the Onato couple and about 15 meters from the nearest
house. Beverly was already dead. Pictures of Beverly
were taken where her body was found.
Since the municipal health officer was not there,
the Municipal Santiary Inspector Lorenzo Bernabe
st
conducted the autopsy. He had 4 findings: 1 , a lacerated
nd
wound from Beverlys vaginal wall to the anus; 2 a
rd
lacerated wound from the vagina to the mons pubis; 3 a
th
contusion in the lumbar area and 4 , blood clots in the left
ear.
Ponciano filed a crim complaint for rape with
homicide. An information for rape with homicide was then
filed.
On his arraignment, Ostia had no counsel so a
counsel de officio was assigned to him.
During trial, Ostia through counsel moved that he
be allowed to withdraw his plea of not guilty to rape with
homicide and to enter a plea of guilty to murder. Ponciano
and the public prosecutor agreed.
121
PEOPLE
OF
VILLANUEVA
THE
PHILIPPINES
v. CAMILO
122
PEOPLE
VS.
RAELITO
LIBRANDO,
SURDILLAS AND EDDIE PURISIMA
LARRY
123
Facts: Aurelio Goze (the victim) and his wife Zenaida with
their children lived in a 3x5house with an extension called
pataguab. The extension had a door apart from the door at
the main house.
At 11pm, while the main house was lighted,
someone kicked open the door. 2persons forcibly took
nd
Aurelio while Ernesto Dela Cruz (2
cousin of the
deceased and with whom he had a land dispute) whom
Zenaida recognized waited downstairs. Zenaida lighted
another lamp.
By the moonlight, Zenaida saw these persons
take Aurelio to a place 30meters to the east of their house.
Ernesto Dela Cruz shot Aurelio with a long firearm. The
others then followed in the shooting.
The next morning, the body of Aurelio with
multiple gunshot wounds was discovered around
30meters away from their house. It was observed that
there were no trees or other structures which would
obstruct the view of the body if you were looking from the
house. The baranggay captain reported this to the SPO4
Franklin Tagupa. Zenaida identified Dela Cruz and his
companions as the ones who killed her husband.
During the investigation, Dela Cruz told Tagupa
that he knew who killed Aurelio. However, Tagupa testified
in court that he forgot the name Dela Cruz told him. The
next day, Tagupa then said that the person Dela Cruz
named was actually a military person and that he was
afraid of retaliation.
DEFENSE STORY:
At the time the killing took place, Dela Cruz was
sleeping the camp of the military. He was told to stay there
because threats from the NPA. They heard gunshots.
Sgts. Evoco and Cavila arrived with Lt. Lleto and they
were told to keep quiet about what happened otherwise
they will become the next victims. As already stated, he
told Tagupa that he knew who killed Aurelio. (for more
details, pls refer to the original of the case. I dont think its
that important naman)
TC: Dela Cruz alibi was not believed. Zenaidas
identification of the perpetrators were believed by the
court. Guilty of Murder qualified by treachery and evident
premeditation attended by aggravating circumstance of
nighttime.
Issue: Whether the crime is murder or just homicide?
Held: Just homicide! No treachery and evident
premeditation but there was abuse of superior strength.
Dela cruz assails the credibility of Zenaida as
witness. This isnt a crim issue so I wont discuss
anymore. Nevertheless, the Court believes Zenaida
because of her straightforward answers.
As to the identification of the witness, it was
established that there was sufficient light for Zenaida to
identify the perpetrators. Just because she lighted another
124
125
PEOPLE V. LUNETA
FACTS: While Leon Gonzales and his wife Segunda
Fuentes were walking along an uninhabited place in the
municipality of Ivisan in Capiz, they were stopped by the
appellant and one Dominador who is still at large. The
appellant and his companion were both armed with
revolvers and represented themselves as MP soldiers.
Leon was asked whether he was an army man to which he
answered in the negative, whereupon appellants
companion gave him a fist blow on the stomach and
another blow with his revolver. In the meantime the
appellant was an onlooker with his revolver pointed at the
spouses. Dominador ordered Leon and his wife to take off
their clothes, a command which was obeyed. Dominador
asked appellant to take away and kill Leon. Dominador
then raped Segunda. Leon was able to escape though.
When Dominador found out that Leon escaped, he went
out to look for him. When appellant was left with Segunda,
the former also raped the latter. Dominador and appellant
left the scene and brought with them the clothes and other
stuff of the victims. After the victims reported the incident
to the police, the perpetrators were found in the house of a
lady doctor and were arrested.
ISSUE: W/N there was the aggravating circumstance of
commission of the crime in an uninhabited place? NO.
HELD: It has not been proven that the appellant and his
companion purposely chose said place as an aid either to
an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their
criminal designs or to a surer concealment of the offense.
On the contrary, it is not improbable that the offended
parties were casually encountered, there being no
evidence that the accused had previously sought the
former for any purpose whatsoever, or that said offended
parties were known by the accused to be habitual
travellers in the vicinity.
The offense committed is robbery with rape.
Uninhabited Place
Note: Lifted from Charm Calderinis digest under Abuse of
confidence, but this digest will discuss more on
Uninhabited Place
PEOPLE
VS.
RAELITO
LIBRANDO,
SURDILLAS AND EDDIE PURISIMA
LARRY
Facts:
126
PEOPLE V. OCO
Facts: Hermigildo Damuag was driving his motorcycle
while Alden Abiabi was seated behind. A white tamaraw
FX blocked their path and thus they slowed down. Another
motorcycle appeared and started shooting. Abiabi was
killed as a result of the gunshots while Damuag was
wounded. There was also another motorcycle that passed
Damuag, with the driver firing shots at Damuag. Damuag
was thrown off his bike and fell to the gutter. He saw that
the driver of this motorcycle is Oco. He was able to identify
him because he was only wearing a towel around his
head, unlike the other riders who were wearing helmets.
Damuag ran towards safety while being chased
by Oco, who was on his bike. He was brought to the
hospital and he had his wounds treated. He survived
because of the prompt medical assistance.
Oco was charged of the crime of murder (Abiabi)
and frustrated murder (Damuag). The aggravating
circumstances of treachery, superior strength, motor
vehicle, nighttime, by a band, aid of armed men, evident
premeditation, and unlicensed firearm.
Oco raised the defense of alibi saying that he
was not there at the crime scene.
Issue: Oco is surely guilty of murder and frustrated
murder. However, what are the aggravating circumstances
present in the case? Which ones are absent?
Ruling: Aggravating circumstances present:
1.
2.
c)The fact that the attack was at nighttime, and occurred
at a hilly portion of the trail leading to the three accused
was clearly in an uninhabited place. The Court however
deemed the two as one aggravating circumstance. This is
in consonance with People vs. Santos, ruling that if the
aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited
place or band concur in the commission of the crime, all
will constitute one aggravating circumstance AS A
3.
127
2.
3.
4.
5.
Held:
Treachery
First of all, the SC found that there was treachery as the
evidence showed that at the time the crime was
committed, the victims were in no position to defend
themselves and the malefactors consciously adopted
particular means to ensure the execution of the crime with
no risk to themselves.
Abuse of superior strength present but absorbed by
treachery
The trial court also found that the offenses were
committed with abuse of superior strength. The
malefactors not only outnumbered the victims; at least two
of them were armed. The assailants deliberately took
advantage of their combined strength in order to
consummate the crime. Nevertheless, the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed by
treachery.
Use of motor vehicle present
We also agree with the trial court that the generic
aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle is
present. The appellant and his companions used motor
bicycles in going to the place of the crime, in carrying
away the effects thereof, and in facilitating their escape.
Nighttime absent
We do not agree with the trial court, however, in its
appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of
nighttime. This circumstance is considered aggravating
only when it facilitated the commission of the crime, or
was especially sought or taken advantage of by the
accused for the purpose of impunity. The essence of this
aggravating circumstance is the obscuridad afforded by,
and
not
merely
the
chronological
onset
of,
nighttime. Although the offense was committed at night,
nocturnity does not become a modifying factor when the
place is adequately lighted, and thus could no longer
insure the offenders immunity from identification or
128
129
PEOPLE
vs.ANTONIO
COMADRE,
GEORGE
COMADRE and DANILO LOZANO (critique this
decision by Tinga)
Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey
Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio (drinking grioup) were having
a drinking spree on the terrace of the house of Roberts
father (Jaime).
130
Act No. 7659 was already in effect. But while the case was
pending, Rep. act No. 8294 was approved on June 6,
1997.Section 2 of the latter law provides that when a
person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised
Penal Code with the use of explosives, detonation agents
or incendiary devices which results in the death of any
person or persons, the use of such explosives, etc. shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance:
Paragraph 3 of Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Rep Act No. 7659, was, thus,
amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8294. Under the
latter law, the use of a hand grenade in killing the victim
was downgraded from being a qualifying circumstance to
a mere generic aggravating circumstance. Considering
that Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8294 is favorable to the
appellant, the same should be applied retroactively.
Considering the factual milieu in this case, the generic
aggravating circumstance of the use of explosives is
absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
PREMEDITATION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
ANNIBONG y INGGAO
vs.
GABRIEL
FACTS:
1. Annibong, the accused, was a kitchen aide
assigned to the Army Camp Detachment in
Apayao. He was in the kitchen with Gabriel
Tallong (witness), a CAFGU member. Corporal
Obngayan, the victim, arrived perspiring and
thirsty. He went to get a drink and was irritated to
find all the water containers empty. He went to
Annibong, and boxed him three times in the
stomach and uttered: "Vulva of your mother, it is
better that I will kill you."
2. According to Annibong, he shot at Obngayan in
self defense. Obngayan allegedly took an M-16
and aimed it at the accused, who then shot him in
self-defense.
3. This was contradicted by Tallong. According to
the sole witness, the victim after boxing the
accused, was walking towards the bunkers when
Annibong suddenly attacked him from the back
with an M-16, then later on, a garrand gun.
Obngayan died instantaneously with his brain
splattered and an eye fallen on the ground.
4. The RTC found Annibong guilty of murder with
the special aggravating circumstance of with
insult or in disregard of the respect due the
offended party on account of his rank.
ISSUE:
a) Is the self-defense theory of Annibong credible?NO
131
HELD:
a)
b)
Mitigating:
132
133
PEOPLE V UBIA
HELD/RATIO: YES.
The trial court convicted accused-appellant of
murder with the qualifying aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation, based on the following findings and
ratiocination:
"The slaying of Jorge Camacho took place about 8:30
o'clock in the evening of February 22, 1996. It was
carried out after the accused have been through
tidying-up the kitchen, the dining room and the kitchen
wares the family of the Camachos used in their early
dinner before 7:00 o'clock that evening. But even
before dinner, the accused have already made
preparations for their flight, shown by the fact that
they already had their clothes, other personal
belongings and food provisions stacked in their
respective travelling bags then placed in a spot where
they can just pick them up as they take to flight."
Although the SC agrees that Baldogo is guilty of
murder, it does not agree with the ruling of RTC that the
crime was qualified by evident premeditation. To warrant
a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution
must establish the confluence of the following
requisites: (a) the time when the offender determined to
commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the
offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient
interval of time between the determination and the
execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.
The qualifying aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation must be proved with certainty as the
crime itself. A finding of evident premeditation cannot be
based solely on mere lapse of time from the time the
malefactor has decided to commit a felony up to the time
that he actually commits it. In this case, the prosecution
failed to prove evident premeditation. The barefaced fact
that Baldogo and Bermas hid the bag containing their
clothing under a tree located about a kilometer or so from
the house of Julio Sr. does not constitute clear evidence
that they decided to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. It is
possible that they hid their clothing therein preparatory to
escaping from the colony. There is no evidence
134
CRAFT
PEOPLE V. EMPACIS
FACTS: At about 9pm, as vicitms Fidel Saromines and his
wife Camila were about to close their small store in Cebu,
2 men, Romualdo Langomez and Crisologo Empacis,
came and asked to buy some sardines and rice. After
they finished eating, Langomez announced a hold-up and
ordered Fidel to give up his money. The latter started to
hand him PhP12K but suddenly decided to fight to keep it.
A struggle followed in the course of w/c Langomez
stabbed Fidel about 3 times. Empacis joined in and w/ his
own knife also stabbed Fidel. At this time, gunshots were
heard outside the house (im guessing the gun shots were
signals by the 3 other conspirators).
It was only when Peter, Fidels 13-yr old son,
saw his father fighting for his life and rushed to his fathers
defense w/ a pinuti (a long bolo) striking Empacis and
inflicting 2 wounds on him did the 2 men flee. Fidel died
from the fatal injuries, w/c penetrated his lungs and heart.
Empacis went to the clinic of Dr Eustaquio for the
treatment of his wounds inflicted by Peter. He told the
doctor that he was assaulted w/o warning by a young man
near the Papan Market.
The next day, police officers went looking for a
man who might have been treated for wounds from a
bladed weapon. They came to Dr Eustaquios clinic who
told them about Empacis. He was found at the public
market where they arrested him. He admitted going to the
store of Fidel but denied having joined Langomez in his
attack. He asserts that he tried to stop him but the latter
succeeded in stabbing Fidel. He further alleges that he
was brought by his neighbors to the clinic. The other 2
men, who were accused of firing the gun from outside,
denied any participation in the crime. They were both
absolved by the court. Langomez disappeared & could
not be found.
Several aggravating circumstances: 1. Dwelling of the
offended party 2. Nighttime 3. Employment of craft and
fraud. 4. Advantage being taken of superior strength
HELD:
1. CRAFT AND FRAUD was properly appreciated against
Empacis. Both men pretended to be bona fide customers
of the victims store and on this pretext gained entry into
the latters store and later, into another part of his
dwelling. In previous cases, the Court held the presence
of fraud or craft when one pretended to be constabulary
soldiers to gain entry into a residence to rob and kill the
residents, pretended to be needful of medical treatment
only killing the owner of the house, and pretended to be
wayfarers who had lost their way to enter into a house.
135
PEOPLE
OF
THE
Appellee, v. VIVENCIO
DENCIO, accused-appellant.
PHILIPPINES,PlaintiffLABUGUEN
@
136
137
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.
6.
7.
138
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the prosecution witnesses are
credible? Yes
(2) Whether defense satisfactorily established
the defense of alibi? No
(1) FINDINGS OF LOWER COURT ARE
BINDING
After a thorough review of the evidence on
record, we affirm the judgment of conviction of
accused-appellants TOMPONG and GUMAWA. At
the core of this petition is the credibility of
eyewitnesses. The trial court found worthy of belief
the accounts of Melita Cancer, Ostimiano Untalan
139
140
PEOPLE v. OLIVO
79. P v Rivera(?) 402 Phil 547
FACTS: A body of a young Igorot woman was found in a
canal near the Athletic Bowl at Burnham Park in Baguio
City. The dead woman was identified by her granduncle,
Teodoro Incan, as his grandniece, Jane Lorielinda
"Lorie" Tacyo. The woman was naked from the waist
down, her bloody face crushed beyond recognition, her
mouth open in a silent scream. Her abdomen, partially
covered by a pink shirt, had several tiny stab wounds.
There were also wounds on her neck. Scattered around
the woman were a hairband, black shoes, white panties,
and a pair of dark blue pants. The police recovered from
the canal what appeared to be her personal effects,
together with two rough rocks stained with blood and a
screwdriver about 10 inches long, with a black handle
made of plastic or rubber. According to the police, she was
seen in the morning of June 13, 1996 at the Igorot
Garden, Burnham Park. She and two companions had
their picture taken in the garden by a street photographer.
The colored picture shows the victim smiling behind
accused-appellant Jessie Olivo and Maybelle Sacliwen.
Lorie wore earrings, a headband, dark blue pants, and the
pink shirt which the police found on her dead body the
following day.
The autopsy showed that the cause of death was
neurogenic shock due to massive crushing injuries of the
head.
Based on the testimonies of several witnesses,
the prosecution was able to prove that Olivo owned the
screwdriver used to stab Lorie and several other
circumstances which pointed to the guilt of Olivo. The RTC
found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpretua.
ISSUE: W/N Olivo was guilty of murder (with the attendant
circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength)
YES
PEOPLE VS GALAPIA
FACTS: Galapia is married to Agudelo. Marriage became
difficult because they lived with Agudelos mom, so
Galapia left. One day, Galapia felt horny and went to see
Agudelo to have sex. He was denied entry to the house.
Galapia waited until everyones asleep then entered the
house through window. Galapias advances were met with
Agudelos refusal along with her threat to stab him of the
kitchen knife she was carrying. A commotion ensued,
which resulted to Galapia getting the knife from Agudelo,
killing her (stabbed her heart) along with her mom and a
nephew and injuring another nephew. Galapia afterwards
surrendered to a policeman (dapat kay brgy captain pero
maysakit siya). Galapia was then charged with parricide
(Agudelo), 2 Murders (mom-in-law + nephew1) and
Frustrated Murder.
ISSUE: W/N Galapias act of killing Agudelo can be
appreciated by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength (as stated in the information). NO.
RATIO:
(Agudelo) Abuse of superior strength cannot be
appreciated in this case for the reason that the said
circumstance is inherent in the crime of parricide where
the husband kills the wife. It is generally accepted that the
husband is physically stronger than the wife.
TREACHERY
PEOPLE v. ESCOTE
141
142
143
144
PEOPLE V. GARCIA
Facts: Major Ines Opina and SPO4 Paterno Oria went to
Barangay Pugo, Bauang, La Union to serve a Warrant of
Arrest against Zaldy Garcia issued by Judge Adolfo
Alagar.
Garcia lived in a house inside a fenced
compound. The compound had two houses. One is a big
house, bungalow type while the other which was rented by
Zaldy Garcia is small, bungalow type made of concrete
hollow blocks. There is a perimeter fence, about 7 to 8 feet
high with 2 steel gates. The wider gate is about 6 to 7 feet
wide and the other is about 5 ft. wide. Both gates were
locked at that time.
They stood in front of the gate that was closed,
then a woman approached them. They told her that a
Warrant of Arrest was issued for the arrest of her
husband. While Major Opina and Garcias wife were
talking, Garcia came out from their house half naked. The
wifes reaction was then normal and she told Major Opina
that they should just stay outside for she will get the key
from the caretaker and open the gate.
When Major Opina saw Zaldy Garcia, he pointed
his finger to Zaldy and said Zaldy you better surrender,
you have a warrant of arrest.(translated already) Zaldy
just waived his hands indicating as if he refuses, who was
then more or less 20 meters from the gate. After waiving
his hands, he went inside the house. From the gate to the
house, there were no obstruction and the ground was
clear.
At that instance, Oria told Opina to call for a
back up. Major Opina then ordered him to do so. As they
were waiting for the back-up, they discussed the strategy
they would employ in order to arrest Zaldy Garcia. After 15
to 20 minutes, 3 policemen arrived.
Upon the arrival of the 3 policemen, Oria and
Major Opina scaled the fence near the smaller gate and
145
146
147
148
149
Sedesias del Castillo offered Castromayor his Tshirt following when the group went home.
150
Issue:
5. WON there was treachery? YES
6. WON nighttime can be applied? NO
PEOPLE V. ONG
151
2.
included:
nighttime,
Issues:
1.
IGNOMINY
PEOPLE VS. FUERTES
152
PEOPLE VS VALLA
FACTS: Accused Vincente Valle is 28 years old and
married. He is the cousin of the victim, an 8 year old girl
named DyesebelDela Cruz. One night, a friend of
Dyesebel was walking along the road near the rice fields
when she heard and recognized the voice of Dyesebel
who was being strangled. The friend ran away out of
fright. Subsequently, the mother of Dyesebel approached
the barangay captain to report that Dyesebel was missing.
The barangay captain immediately ordered a search party.
The father of Dyesebel told the barangay captain that
Dyesebel was last seen with Vicente Valla. Valla was
summoned by the captain but the former did not report.
153
SC: Yes.
The Court held that there was ignominy because the
appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male
superior female inferior, but also "The same position as
dogs do" i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims
there was no ignominy because "The studies of many
experts in the matter have shown that this 'position' is not
novel and has repeatedly and often been resorted to by
couples in the act of copulation. This may well be if the
sexual act is performed by consenting partners but not
otherwise.
PEOPLE V SAYLAN
Memory aid: doggy-style rape
At 7 PM, accused accosted the victim Eutropia, a teacher,
(while she was with her kids) and forced her to have sex
with him by poking her with an 8-inch dagger. (dirty
mind!) He brought her to a creek and told her to undress.
Her kids were left in a junction which was 400 meters from
the nearest house.
an
aggravating
154
155
HELD:
Treachery: YES. There is no doubt that the killings
were done with treachery, considering that the
assailants suddenly barged in and immediately went
on a shooting rampage. The Court has ruled time and
again ruled that when the attack is sudden and
unexpected, there is treachery.The presence of even
this single qualifying circumstance is sufficient to
qualify the killing to murder.
PEOPLE V. SITCHON
Facts: Sitchon beat up a little 2 year old boy named Mark
Anthony Fernandez to death. Victim mark spread his feces
all over the floor and this enraged Sitchon. Sitchon struck
him with a belt, 2x2 wood, and a hammer. He even
banged the little kids head on the wooden wall. This was
witnessed by victim-marks older brother Roberto. The
next door neighbor Lilia also witnessed the beating
through the open door after she heard the cries of victimmark. Later, Sitchon brought victim-mark to the hospital
but he was already dead then.
Sitchonis the live-in partner of Marks mom. He is
also a drug addict, he was then high from Valium 10.
Sitchonpleaded guiltyafter defense rested its
case and pleaded the defense of accident. The lower court
convicted him of murder, qualified by treachery,
aggravated by cruelty and alternative circumstance of
intoxication. Sitchon sentenced to death [note: 1998 RTC
decision and 2002 SC decision].
Issue: What are the different aggravating and mitigating
circumstances applicable in this case?
Held: Murder, qualified by treachery, mitigated by lack of
intention to commit so grave a wrong.
[Note: Callejo assigned this case under Cruelty, thus this
is to be discussed first]
156
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PEOPLE V ABDUL
PEOPLE vs. VALDEZ
157
158
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.
EDUARDO DE JESUS y ENRILE, appellant.
FACTS: SPO3 Ybasco was a policeman at the Makati
Police Station. He had a part time job as a money
changer. Every afternoon he would deliver money for his
employer, carrying it in a plastic bag.
On February 1994, appellant De Jesus, together with a
guy named Manansala and another named Del Rosario
planned to stage a robbery. They had a financier, British
national Christopher Nash. They were planning to rob
159
PEOPLE V. SITCHON
FACTS:
160
161
162
HELD:
Treachery
RA 9165, SEC 25
163
164
Murder
homicide
In connection with:
Rebellion,
Sedition,
Iinsurrection or
Attempted
coup
de'etat
Effect
Aggravating
Circumstance
Absorbed
Accused
will
be
prosecuted only
for the committed
crime without
any effect for the
unlicensed firearm
165
PEOPLE v. SABADAO
Facts: Defendants Sabadao, Valdez, Mayo, and Abangon
were accused of robbery with homicide and illegal
possession of firearm. Armed with loaded guns, they
entered RCBC in Ilocos Norte and ordered that the vault
be opened. Peace officers arrived (due to the burglar
alarm) and a shoot-out ensued. One police officer and
one security guard were shot and died as a result. Aside
from the 4, there was a fifth robber (but he was shot and
died after). The accused were able to escape with
P4,200. Valdez said he was in RCBC to solicit funds for a
seminar workshop while Sabadaoput up the defense of
alibi.
The RTC found them guilty of robbery with
homicide. It found that conspiracy took place because of
their previously designed scheme of entry and plan of
operation.
The crime was also attended by the
aggravating circumstance of band, having been
perpetrated by 4 armed malefactors who acted together in
the commission of the crime.
Before the SC, they argue that they were not
adequately identified s the perpetrators, claiming that
there was no clear and convincing proof that either of
them caused the death of the victims, and prosecution
was not able to establish who actually shot who. Plus, it
should have been attempted robbery only because they
were not able to perform all the acts of execution, i.e. that
the prosecution were not able to concretely establish that
they were able to take the money away.
Issue: Guilty? YES
Ratio: The rule is well-established that whenever homicide
has been committed as a consequence of or on the
occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as
principals of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide although they did not actually take part in the
homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored
to prevent the homicide. Further, conspiracy can be
inferred from the acts of the malefactors before, during
and after the commission of the crime which are indicative
of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of
sentiments. In this case, their cooperative acts toward
their criminal objective render them equally liable as
conspirators:
Valdez gained foothold by holding the manager
and one of the two security guards captive. Further
deployment of reinforcement is shown by the concerted
th
entry of 2 or more of the conspirators follow by the 4 to
complete the strength of force that constituted conspiracy.
With this in place, the implementation of the plan of action
then started with the taking of valuables first, divesting the
166
penalty to the next higher degree. Examples are quasirecidivism under Article 160 and complex crimes under
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. It does not change
the character of the offense charged.64 It must always be
alleged and charged in the information, and must be
proven during the trial in order to be appreciated.65
Moreover, it cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
It is clear from the foregoing that the meaning
and effect of generic and special aggravating
circumstances are exactly the same except that in case of
generic aggravating, the same CAN be offset by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance whereas in the case of
special aggravating circumstance, it CANNOT be offset by
an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Aside from the aggravating circumstances
abovementioned, there is also an aggravating
circumstance provided for under Presidential Decree No.
1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, which is a
special law. Its pertinent provision states:
If homicide or murder is committed with the use
of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
In interpreting the same provision, the trial court
reasoned that such provision is "silent as to whether it is
generic or qualifying." Thus, it ruled that "when the law is
silent, the same must be interpreted in favor of the
accused." Since a generic aggravating circumstance is
more favorable to petitioner compared to a qualifying
aggravating circumstance, as the latter changes the
nature of the crime and increase the penalty thereof by
degrees, the trial court proceeded to declare that the use
of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner is to be
considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance.
This interpretation is erroneous, since we already held in
several cases that with the passage of Republic Act No.
8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in
murder or homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL
aggravating circumstance and not a generic aggravating
circumstance. Republic Act No. 8294 applies to the instant
case since it took effect before the commission of the
crimes in 21 April 1998. Therefore, the use of an
unlicensed firearm by the petitioner in the instant case
should be designated and appreciated as a SPECIAL
aggravating circumstance and not merely a generic
aggravating circumstance.
After a careful study of the records of the present
case, this Court found that the use of unlicensed firearm
was not duly proven by the prosecution. Although
jurisprudence dictates that the existence of the firearm can
be established by mere testimony, the fact that appellant
was not a licensed firearm holder must still be established.
The prosecution failed to present written or testimonial
evidence to prove that appellant did not have a license to
167
PEOPLE V. ABDUL
Facts: In the afternoon of Aug. 31, 1999, after Nestor
Gabuya, after closing his motorcycle and bicycle spare
parts shop, headed home on his bike. Unknown to him,
Abdul Aminola (defendant) and Alimudin Laminda were
observing him. Aminola followed Gabuya. Upon catching
up with Gabuya, Aminola put his arms around Gabuya and
wrestled for the bag Gabuya was carrying. Gabuya
refused to let go of his bag, whereupon Aminola pulled out
a gun and shot him. Gabuya fell to the ground but still
resisted, prompting Aminola to take another shot.
Mike Maitimbang (the other defendant in this
case) then approached and took something from Gabuya.
Maitimbang shot Gabuya behind and fled towards the
direction of eyewitness Oliva. Joel, Gabuyas caretaker,
gave chase but was fired upon by Maitimbang.Oliva
testified seeing the incident.
Regina, Gabuyas wife, reported the incident that
same afternoon. Based on her information, Major Migano
formed a team to investigate the crime.
Later that evening, an informant known as
"Abdul" (different from the defendant) told the police that
he witnessed what had happened to Gabuya and could tell
them where the suspects could be found. True enough,
Abdul led Major Migano and his men. A blocking force was
organized while Col. Bernido formed a team to make the
arrests on the suspects.
The following night, Major Miganos team once
again went to the hideout, where Abdul identified four of
Gabuyas assailants. One of them, Aminola, was found in
possession of an unlicensed .45 caliber gun with one (1)
magazine and two (2) ammunitions. The following night
Matimbang was also arrested.
Two informations were filed. One was against all
of them for robbing and killing Gabuya, The other one was
against Abdul Aminola only for unlicensed possession of
the gun and the ammo.
The defendants all denied any knowledge of the
crime. They said that they were arrested without warrants
and that they only found out about the charge after the
inquest proceedings.
The RTC found Abdul Aminola and Mike
Matimbiang guilty of robbery with homicide with the
aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm,
applying Section 1 of Republic Act 8294. They were
sentenced to death. The other were acquitted.
The CA affirmed but reduced the penalty to
reclusion perpetua in view of the abolition of the death
penalty.
168
169
170
171
172
173
ASTORGA V. PEOPLE
The Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of the
DENR of Tacloban sent a team to the island Daram to
conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection
operations regarding illegal logging. The team was
composed of 5 EEs of DENR and escorted by 2
policemen.
They chanced upon the several yacht-like boats
being constructed in barangays in Daram. Astorga was
present at one. When one of the team members (Elpidio
Simon) approached Astorga to explain their purpose, he
was twice slapped hard on the shoulder and the Mayor
said in their dialect: I can make you swim back to
Tacloban. Dont you know that I can box? I can box. Dont
you know that I can declare this a misencounter? Mayor
Astorga then ordered for reinforcements and minutes later,
a banca with 10 men, dressed in fatigue uniforms and
armed with guns, arrived. They surrounded the DENR
team and pointed their guns at the team members. Simon
again tried to explain their purpose and took out a
handheld radio to contact DENR Catbalogan. Mayor
Astorga then forcibly grabbed the radio, and said Its better
if you have no radio so that your office would not know
your whereabouts and so that you cannot ask for help. He
again slapped Simon hard and said If you are tough guys
in Leyte, do not bring it to Samar because I will not
tolerate it here. If you really want to confiscate anything,
you start with the big-time. If you confiscate the boats of
Figueroa I will surrender mine. (Figueroa is also an owner
of several boats) When the team asked to leave, he said,
you cannot go home now because I will bring you to
Daram. We will have many things to discuss there.
The team was brought to a house where they
were fed dinner. They were allowed to go around, but not
leave the barangay. They were only allowed to leave at
2am the next day.
174
MILO V. SALANGA
175
176
Held/Ratio: Nope!
An election day or a special holiday, should not
be included in the computation of the period prescribed by
law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases
of warrantless arrests, it being a "no-office day." (SC citing
Medina vs. Orosco, 125 Phil. 313) Here, while it appears
that the complaints against Soria for Illegal Possession of
Firearm and Violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 3328
were filed with only on May 15, 2001 at 4:30 p.m., he had
already been released the day before or on May 14, 2001
at about 6:30 p.m. by the respondents. Hence, there was
no violation of Article 125 insofar as Soria was concerned.
In relation to Bista, there was likewise no
violation of Article 125 because the running of the 36
hours was tolled by one day (election day). Moreover, he
has a standing warrant of arrest for Violation of B.P. Blg. 6
and it was only on May 15, 2001, at about 2:00 p.m. that
he was able to post bail and secure an Order of Release.
Obviously, however, he could only be released if he has
no other pending criminal case requiring his continuous
detention.
The Information against Bista was filed with on
May 15, 2001 but he was released from detention only on
June 8, 2001. Was there a delay in the delivery of
detained person to the proper judicial authorities under the
circumstances? The answer is in the negative. The
complaint against him was seasonably filed in the court of
justice within the 36 hour period prescribed by law.
Remember that he was detained in May 13 and the
information was filed on May 15. Furthermore, 13 was a
Sunday and 14 was election day.
The duty of the detaining officers is deemed
complied with upon the filing of the complaints. Citing the
case of Agbay, the SC said that upon the filing of the
complaint with the proper court, the intent behind Art. 125
is satisfied considering that by such act, the detained
person is informed of the crime imputed against him and,
upon his application with the court, he may be released on
bail.
ALBIOR v AUGUIS
FACTS: Edilberto Albior is the son of the
complainant/petitioner in this case> is the Clerk of Court of
the MCTC of Talibon Bohol. 2 informations for rape was
filed against Edilberto before the sala of Judge Avelino
Puracan of which Auguis was the clerk of court who
received the complaints. Auguis immediately issued an
order for the detention of Edilberto. This order was
directed to the BJMP. Edilberto was detained.
Claiming that his son was illegally detained
because no warrant was issued for his arrest and neither
was there a preliminary investigation, complainant filed a
177
ALEJANO, ET AL V CABUAY
(actually a habeas corpus case, but Justice talked about
the limitation on lawyers visits)
FACTS: Alejano, Trillanes, etc are all AFP men detained
for their participation in the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny. They
were charged with coup detat and detained in the ISAFP
Detention Center under the command of General Cabuay.
The detainess claim that their right to counsel
was infringed upon because their counsels were only
allowed to meet with them from 8 am 5 pm every day.
They wanted their counsels to visit them at any time of day
or night.
They also claim that their right to privacy was
infringed upon because Trillanes and Maestrecampos
private letters were being opened and read by the ISAFP
officials. The letters were not sealed in envelopes (they
were merely folded) because the ISAFP Detention Center
Held:
1. No. Section 4(b) of RA 7438 provides the
standard to make regulations in detention centers
allowable: such reasonable measures as may be
necessary to secure the detainees safety and prevent
his escape. In the present case, the visiting hours
accorded to the lawyers of the detainees are reasonably
connected to the legitimate purpose of securing the safety
and preventing the escape of all detainees.
While petitioner-lawyers may not visit the
detainees any time they want, the fact that the detainees
still have face-to-face meetings with their lawyers on a
daily basis clearly shows that there is no impairment of
detainees right to counsel. Petitioners as counsels could
visit their clients between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with a
lunch break at 12:00 p.m. The visiting hours are regular
business hours, the same hours when lawyers normally
entertain clients in their law offices. Clearly, the visiting
hours pass the standard of reasonableness. Moreover, in
urgent cases, petitioners could always seek permission
from the ISAFP officials to confer with their clients beyond
the visiting hours. The scheduled visiting hours provide
reasonable access to the detainees, giving petitioners
sufficient time to confer with the detainees.
2. No. (original went through a litany of US
cases, just read the original if you want to know) The
letters alleged to have been read by the ISAFP authorities
were not confidential letters between the detainees and
their lawyers. The petitioner-lawyer who received the
letters from detainees Trillanes and Maestrecampo was
merely acting as the detainees personal courier and not
as their counsel when he received the letters for mailing.
In the present case, since the letters were not
confidential communication between the detainees
and their lawyers, the officials of the ISAFP Detention
Center could read the letters. If the letters are marked
confidential communication between the detainees
and their lawyers, the detention officials should not
read the letters but only open the envelopes for
inspection in the presence of the detainees.
That a law is required before an executive
officer could intrude on a citizens privacy rights is a
guarantee that is available only to the public at large but
not to persons who are detained or imprisoned. The right
to privacy of those detained is subject to Section 4 of RA
178
179
MARCOS V MANGLAPUS
Facts: This case involves a petition of mandamus and
prohibition asking the court to order the respondents
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, etc. to issue a travel
documents to former Pres. Marcos and the immediate
members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of
the President's decision to bar their return to the
Philippines. Petitioners assert that the right of the
Marcoses to return in the Philippines is guaranteed by the
Bill of Rights, specifically Sections 1 and 6. They
contended that Pres. Aquino is without power to impair the
liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may
do so within the limits prescribed by law. Nor the President
impair their right to travel because no law has authorized
her to do so.
They further assert that under international law,
their right to return to the Philippines is guaranteed
particularly by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which has been ratified by the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers
granted by the constitution, the President (Aquino) may
prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
Held: "It must be emphasized that the individual right
involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines to
other countries or within the Philippines. These are what
the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the
right involved in this case at bar is the right to return to
one's country, a distinct right under international law,
independent from although related to the right to travel.
Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat
the right to freedom of movement and abode within the
territory of a state, the right to leave the country, and the
right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights.
What the Declaration speaks of is the "right to freedom of
movement and residence within the borders of each
state". On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the
right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his
residence and the right to be free to leave any country,
including his own. Such rights may only be restricted by
laws protecting the national security, public order, public
U.S. V. DORR
Facts: Dorr and others were convicted of publishing a
scurrilous libel against the Government of the United
States and the Insular Govt of the Philippine Islands.
Scurrilous libels are punished under Section 8 of Act No.
292 of the Commission:
Every person who shall utter
seditious words or speeches, write,
publish, or circulate scurrilous libels
against the Government of the United
States or the Insular Government of the
Philippine Islands, or which tend to
disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in
executing his office, or which tend to
instigate others to cabal or meet
together for unlawful purposes, or which
suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies
or riots, or which tend to stir up the
people against the lawful authorities, or
to disturb the peace of the community,
the safety and order of the Government,
or who shall knowingly conceal such evil
practices, shall be punished
[Note: According to my Dictionary scurrilous means,
making or spreading claims about someone with the
intention of damaging their reputation. Thus perhaps its
the same as saying its malicious libels.]
180
ISSUE:
(1) W/N the trial court was correct in finding the
accused guilty of the crime charged? (NOTE: The
violence was committed by the accused immediately
after their entry without the consent of Alejo.)
(2) W/N express prohibition to enter the dwelling is
necessary in order to be guilty of the crime charged?
HELD/RATIO:
(1) YES. Art. 491 of the (Spanish) Penal Code states
that: He who shall enter the residence (dwelling
house) of another against the will of the tenant thereof
shall be punished with the penalty of arresto mayor
and a fine of from 325 to 3,259 pesetas. x x x If the
act shall be executed with violence or intimidation the
penalty shall be prision correccional in the medium
and maximum grade, and a fine of from 325 to 3,250
pesetas. The SC is of the belief that said provision
does not only relate to the method by which one may
enter the residence of another without his consent,
but also pertains to ones conduct immediately after
his entry. Thus, a person armed with deadly weapons
who enters the residence of another in the nighttime,
without consent, and immediately commits acts of
violence and intimidation, is guilty of entering the
house of another with violence and intimidation and is
punishable under Art. 491 of the Penal Code.
(2) NO. As a rule, the inviolability of the home is one of
the most fundamental of all the individual rights
declared and recognized in the political codes of
civilized nations. No one can enter into the house of
another without the consent of its owners or
181
UNITED
LABORATORIES
PHILIPPINES/ ERNESTO ISIP
V.
SHALIMAR
182
3.
RULING:
1. We agree with the petitioners contention that a
search warrant proceeding is, in no sense, a
criminal action or the commencement of a
prosecution. The proceeding is not one against
any person, but is solely for the discovery and to
get possession of personal property. It is a
special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature,
and made necessary because of public
necessity. It resembles in some respect with
what is commonly known as John Doe
proceedings. While an application for a search
warrant is entitled like a criminal action, it does
not make it such an action.
A search warrant is a legal process which has been
likened to a writ of discovery employed by the State to
procure relevant evidence of crime. It is in the nature of a
criminal process, restricted to cases of public
prosecutions. A search warrant is a police weapon, issued
under the police power. A search warrant must issue in
the name of the State, namely, the People of the
Philippines.
A search warrant has no relation to a civil process. It
is not a process for adjudicating civil rights or maintaining
mere private rights. It concerns the public at large as
distinguished from the ordinary civil action involving the
rights of private persons. It may only be applied for in the
furtherance of public prosecution.
However, a private individual or a private corporation
complaining to the NBI or to a government agency
charged with the enforcement of special penal laws, such
as the BFAD, may appear, participate and file pleadings in
the search warrant proceedings to maintain, inter alia, the
validity of the search warrant issued by the court and the
admissibility of the properties seized in anticipation of a
criminal case to be filed; such private party may do so in
collaboration with the NBI or such government agency.
The party may file an opposition to a motion to quash the
search warrant issued by the court, or a motion for the
reconsideration of the court order granting such motion to
quash.
In this case, UNILAB, in collaboration with the NBI,
opposed the respondents motion to quash the search
warrant. The respondents served copies of their reply and
183
184
185
186
or
187
BAYAN v. ERMITA
FACTS: Rallies of September 20, October 4, 5 and 6,
2005 is at issue. BAYANs rally was violently dispersed. 26
petitioners were injured, arrested and detained when a
peaceful mass action they was preempted and violently
dispersed by the police. KMU asserts that the right to
peaceful assembly, are affected by Batas Pambansa No.
880 and the policy of Calibrated Preemptive Response
(CPR) being followed to implement it. KMU, et al., claim
that on October 4, 2005, a rally KMU co-sponsored was to
be conducted at the Mendiola bridge but police blocked
them along C.M. Recto and Lepanto Streets and forcibly
dispersed them, causing injuries to several of their
members. They further allege that on October 6, 2005, a
multi-sectoral rally which KMU also co-sponsored was
188
189
PEOPLE V. HERNANDEZ
FACTS: Amado HERNANDEZ5 (member of the CPP and
President of the Congress of Labor Organizations) re-filed
190
PEOPLE v. KAMLON
Facts: Kamlon was convicted by the CFI of Sulu for being
the leader of a sedition (others were also convicted, but
not important).
In another criminal case, he was
sentenced to death for the kidnapping of Alling and Ajibun
complexed with the murder of Alling.
Heres what happened (version which the CFI
believed): Two years prior to the trial, Kamlon together
with three armed companions set out to look for Alling and
191
PEOPLE v. PEREZ
FACTS: Leonard Wood was the Governor-General of the
Philippines. One time, while holding a discussion with
several persons on political matters, including the
administration of Governor-General Wood, accused
Perez, shouted a number of times: "The Filipinos, like
myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for
having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos, for he
has killed our independence."
PEOPLE V. RECTO
FACTS:
There was a report about rice being stolen from a
bodega. The barangay captain and a barangay
kagawad went to the bodega to investigate. The chief
barangay tanod passed by and asked what they
were doing in the bodega.
The appellant and his group arrived and was begged
by the barangay captain not to start trouble. Despite
this, the appellant brought out a balisong which made
the barangay captain retreat. The barangay kagawad
approached and asked the appellant and his group to
surrender their weapons (may parang baril pa silang
dala) but the latter shot him instead. At this time, the
chief tanod was hiding in an old kubeta, where he saw
appellants group kill the kagawad.
The chief tanod and the barangay captain jumped out
from the window of the kubeta and ran but the former
was shot on his thigh while the latter was shot on his
elbow. Still, they were able to escape.
Several cases were filed against Recto and his group,
one of which concerned the injury inflicted upon the
chief tanod (which I think is the one important for the
class). Based on that, appellant was charged with
QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT.
ISSUE: W/N appellant should be charged with qualified
direct assault for the injury of the chief tanod.
HELD/RATIO: NO.
Direct assault, a crime against public order, may be
committed in two ways: first, by any person or persons
who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or
intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes
enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and
sedition; and second, by any person or persons who,
without a public uprising, shall attack, employ force,
192
193
PEOPLE VS RELLIN
Doctrine: In all forms of assault, resistance or
disobedience, it is required that (a) the accused knew the
identity of the victim and (b) the victim was then acting in
the due and lawful performance of his duties, or the
reason for the attack against him was his performance of
such official duties
194
US V. GUMBAN
FACTS: Accused is Nicomedes Gumban. He is charged
with the crime of assault upon agents of authority.
On Aug 13, 1917, Petronilo Gumban is the
municipal president of Jaro, Iloilo. He was with municipal
councilor Magdaleno Suliano who was reporting about the
condition of his animals. Suddenly, Gregorio Ismana, a
tenant of councilor Suliano arrived and reported to Mayor
P. Gumban an incident.
Ismana related that he had surprised a carabao
belonging to Policarpio Gumban and as a result, the
carabao destroyed the planted area belonging to councilor
Suliano. So Ismana seized the said carabao and brought it
to the police station in the barrio, which was within the
zone affected by the quarantine.
Thereafter, Epifanio Gumban and Nocomedes
Gumban (accused), who were brothers Policarpio, of the
owner of the carabao, arrived to where the municipal
president Petronilo Gumban was to protest the taking of
their carabaos. After hearing the protests Petronilo
(municipal president) said that in his opinion, Ismala had
the right to take the carabao to the police station. But he
promised that the following day, he was going to intervene
in the matter and telephone the man in charge of the
quarantine so that the said carabao would not be comingled with the other carabaos in quarantine. Upon
hearing this statement of the president, the accused
insulted the said president and gave him a slap on the
face which struck his left ear.
TC convicted him of assault upon an AGENT of
authority.
PEOPLE VS LADJAALAM
(the case is really long but the relevant part is only 2
paragraphs short)
195
SENATE V. ERMITA
(Note that this is a Consti case, so the Crim Law aspect of
this case was not thoroughly discussed, not even a single
196
197
SIQUIAN V. PEOPLE
198
SAMSON V. CA
FACTS: Lascano and his wife are entitled to some money
because their son was a soldier for the USAFFE during
nd
the 2 world war.
Amado Cruz was with 2 persons purporting to be
the Lascano spouses. Cruz asked the help of his friend
Rufino Samson, the appellant in this case, in order for the
Lascano spouses to get their checks. Samson verified
the identity of the purported Lascanos by examining their
residence certificates. True enough, Samson had a friend
with the Finance Dept of the AFP, Lt. Valencia, and they
were able to get their checks that amounted to 12K.
The group then went to the Treasury Dept to
cash the checks. Samson also knew the teller and
represented that the Lascanos were the real Lascanos.
Mrs. Lascano placed her thumbprint on the back of the 2
checks while Mr. Lascano signed his name. SAMSON, on
the other hand, SIGNED ON THE BOTTOM AS THE
LAST INDORSER of the CHECK. The 12K was released.
The group went to Aristocrat with about 11 other persons.
They had their lunch and Samson was given P310 as
gratitude money. Thereafter, the purported Lascanos
were never seen again.
Days later, Samson was informed that the
Lascanos were not the real Lascanos. Samson
investigated and found that real Mr. Lascano could barely
walk and the real Mrs. Lascano was a teacher who denied
receiving any money.
199
be
committed
through
ANDAYA v PEOPLE
FACTS:
Armed Forces and Police Savings and Loan Association
Inc. (AFPSLAI) is a non-stock non-profit corporation
rendering savings and loan services to its members.
Petitioner Noe Andaya was its president.
Noe Andaya proposed to increase the capitalization of
the AFPSLAI to boost its lending capacity to its
members. Pursuant to this, the Board of Trustees
passed a resolution creating the Finders Fee Program
which provided that any officer, member or employee of
AFPSLAI who can solicit at least 100,000 pesos worth
of investment is entitled to a Finders Fee equivalent to
1% of the solicitation.
Thereafter, the Central Bank notified AFPSLAI that its
financial position was precarious because of
mismanagement. The Board ordered an investigation
which resulted to the filing of criminal information
against
Andaya
for
ESTAFA
THROUGH
FALSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS.
What happened was Ernesto Hernandez was able to
solicit from an outsider an investment worth 2.1M. Since
Hernandez did not want his Finders Fee worth 21,000
reflected in his Income Tax Return, he asked Andaya if
the latter could find someone who can receive the cash
in his behalf. Thus Andaya told Guilas (who was a clerk
of AFPSLAI) to receive the Fee and turn it over to him
(Andaya) so that the latter may give it to Hernandez. To
this end, Andaya allegedly substituted the name of
Hernandez for Guilas in the disbursement voucher.
The Trial Court convicted Andaya saying that all the
elements of the crime are present. First, Andaya caused
to it appear in the disbursement voucher that Guilas,
instead of Hernandez, was entitled to the Fee and
Second, that this was done with criminal intent to cause
damage to the government in the form of evading taxes.
ISSUES: Whether or not Andaya is guilty of the crime
charged - NO
HELD: Petitioner must be acquitted on reasonable doubt
Petitioner should not have been charged with estafa
through falsification of commercial document but only
estafa through falsification of private document whose
elements are as follows: (1) offender commits any of
the acts of falsification mentioned in 171 (2)
falsification was committed on a private document
and (3) the falsification caused damage or there was
intent to cause damage to a third person.
st
1 element is satisfied. Prosecution was able to
establish the participation of Andaya in causing the
voucher to be named after Guilas rather than
Hernandez. Although Andaya did not personally cause
the substitution, he is nevertheless a principal by
induction for having ordered so. In this case, the act of
200
LASTRILLA V GRANDA
FACTS: Granda was the grandson of the lot owners
(Rafael and Aurora). The lot owners died in 1989 and
2000, respectively. Granada claims that Lastrila, et al,
falsified three deeds of sale covering numerous parcels of
land in favor of the latter and the latters relatives.
Because of the 3 deeds of sale, the parcels of land were
registered to Lastrilla and his relatives.
The first deed covered 2 parcels of land. The
second deed covered 2 parcels of land. While the third
deed covered 3 parcels of land.
Granda claims that
1) the signatures on the 3 deeds of sale were falsified and
were not of his grandparents,
2) the 3 deeds of sale were antedated (the deeds said that
the transactions took place on Dec 1985, but in fact they
took place in 1999 or 2000)
3) the witness to the deed (Grandas sister Silvina) could
not have possibly signed the 3 deeds in 1985 because she
was cloistered in a convent at that time.
4) the subject deeds were only registered with the RD only
on 2000, or 15 years after the purported sales
201
MONTEVERDE V. PEOPLE - ??
202
203
204
DAVA v. PEOPLE
FACTS: Michael Dava bumped pedestrians Bernadette
Roxas Clamor and Dolores E. Roxas, causing death to
former and physical injuries to the latter. As a
consequence, his driver's license was confiscated and he
was charged with homicide and serious physical injuries.
One day, the brother of Bernadette and the father of
Dolores, saw Dava driving a Volkswagen. Knowing that
Dava's driver's license was used as an exhibit in court and
that no traffic violation receipt had been issued to Dava,
they had Dava apprehended for driving without a license.
When he was apprehended, he showed the police officers
a non-professional driver's license No. 2706887 with
official receipt No. 0605870 issued by Agency Pampanga
in the name of Michael T. Dava. When asked about the
source of his license, Dava informed them that his
officemate (Manalili) had secured it for him. He was
brought to the police station and charged w falsification of
a public document.
Prosecution witnesses: Caroline Vinluan of the
Angeles City branch of the Bureau of Land Transportation
205
FLORES VS LAYOSA
Facts: On Dec 1991, private respondent Benigno
Montera, employee of the National Food Authority (NFA),
filed a complaint in the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB)
against the petitioners Flores, Elizon and Soloria, and 2
others (Dansal and Vallada). OMB filed an Information
charging the petitioners with the offense of Estafa through
Falsification of Public Documents.
It was alleged that Dansal and Flores were dept
manager and asst manager respectively while Elizon,
Soloria and Vallada were security personnel of NFA.That
the petitioners conspired in falsifying the DAILY TIME
RECORD of Vallada, making it appear that the latter
reported for work as a security guard at the NFA when in
fact, he never reported for work. And because of this,
Vallada was still able to collect his salary.
Prosecutors filed a motion to suspend the
petitioners pendent lite, which was granted by the court,
suspending them for 90 days. Trial court applied Sec 13 of
RA 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) which
mandates that a public officer charged for an offense
involving fraud upon govt or public funds or property shall
be suspended pending case in court. Petitioners filed an
MR which was denied. A certiorari to the Sandiganbayan,
which only affirmed the TCs issuance of order of
suspension pendente lite because it falls under Sec 13 of
RA 3019.
While
petitioners
concede
that
the Information sufficiently alleges the elements of the
offense of falsification of public document, they assert that
it does not contain an averment of fraud or deceit on their
part. Hence, they claim that the Information does not
206
CAUBANG V. PEOPLE
Doctrine: possessor of falsified document is deemed as
the forger/ immaterial if falsified document contains no
false contents, so long as signature has been forged!
207
NESTOR A. BERNARDINO
and CELEDONIA N.
TOMAS, vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
EUGELIO G.
PHILIPPINES,
BARAWID
vs.
PEOPLE
OF
THE
208
PEOPLE V. ANDAYA
Facts:
209
210
211
212
GARCIA VS CA
FACTS: GARCIA was charged with Falsification of a
Private Document by being altering a receipt for P5000 to
make it appear to be P55k. The receipt was the product of
a verbal agreement between QUIJADA and GARCIA for
the sale of formers house. A partial payment of P5k was
made by GARCIA, and he prepared two handwritten, one
for each of them. The deal went sour and GARCIA filed a
complaint for estafa against QUIJADA for his failure to
execute a deed of sale and deliver the subject property.
Among the evidence she submitted was the copy of the
receipt she prepared. However, the receipt appeared to
have been altered, by inserting fifty before five and the
number 5 was inserted before 5,000 (basically made it
appear that P5k P55k) plus other changes.16 QUIJADA
noticed the alterations and instituted criminal action
against GARCIA. GARCIA admitted the alteration, but
countered that it was done in the presence and at the
request of QUIJADA (no signature of QUIJADA coz he
was in a hurry daw). GARCIA added that this was
retaliation to the estafa case filed against QUIJADA.
RTC: Against GARCIA. If she made changes in
the receipt while Alberto was counting the money it would
not have taken more than five (5) seconds to affix his
signature thereon even if he was in a hurry to leave.
Elements of Article 172 (2) in relation to Art 171(6) proven
BRD.
CA: Affirm conviction
ISSUE: W/N GARCIA falsified the receipt (a private
document) in violation of Art 172 in relation to Art 171.
YES.
16 Inserted additional words 'Now covered by T.C.T. # 3998 R.D.
Mandaluyong MM. the parties agree to execute of [sic] valid deed
of conveyance covering the same sale, changed the date of the
receipt and put P55k on top of the receipt
RATIO:
The elements of the crime of falsification under Article 171
(6) of the Revised Penal Code are:
(1) that there be an alteration (change) or intercalation
(insertion) on a document;
(2) that it was made on a genuine document;
(3) that the alteration or intercalation has changed the
meaning of the document; and
(4) that the changes made the document speak something
false.
When these are committed by a private individual on a
private document the violation would fall under paragraph
2, Article 172 of the same code, but there must be, in
addition to the aforesaid elements, independent evidence
of damage or intention to cause the same to a third
person. Given the admissions of GARCIA that she altered
the receipt, and without convincing evidence that the
alteration was with the consent of private complainant, the
Court holds that all four (4) elements have been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. As to the requirement of
damage, this is readily apparent as it was made to appear
that Alberto had received P50,000 when in fact he did not.
Hence, GARCIA's conviction.
PANUNCIO v. PEOPLE
Facts: Operatives of the LTO and the Special Mission
Group Task Force Lawin of the Presidential Anti-Crime
Commission (PACC) led by PNP Superintendent Panfilo
Lascon and Senior Inspector Ouano, Jr. raided the
residence of Panuncio, who was a jeepney operator.
They were armed with a search warrant and confiscated
LTO documents, 17 pieces of private vehicle plates, a
copy machine, typewriters, etc. One of the LTO docs
confiscated was MVRR No. 63231478 (Official Receipt
ata) issued to Manlite Transport Corporation. Panuncio
was arrested and brought to the PACC.
The LTO filed a complaint against Panuncio and
an Information was filed against him for violating Art. 172
(1)17 in relation to Art. 17118 of the RPC. It was alleged
17 Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified
documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the
falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any
public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind
of commercial document.
18 Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or
ecclesiastic minister. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine
not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public
officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official
position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the
following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
213
214
xxx
ISSUE: W/N the justices are liable for the charges against
them. NO.
HELD/RATIO: It must be stressed that as a matter of
policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not
subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to
liability civil, criminal or administrative for any of his
official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts
in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud,
dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent
to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned.
It is also worth mentioning that the provisions
of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code as to
rendering knowingly unjust judgment refer to an
individual judge who does so in any case submitted
to him for decision and has no application to the
members of a collegiate court such as the
Sandiganbayan or its divisions, who reach their
conclusions in consultation and accordingly render
their collective judgment after due deliberation. It also
follows, consequently, that a charge of violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground
that such a collective decision is unjust cannot
prosper.
An administrative complaint is not an appropriate
remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a
motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for
certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted
with fraud, malice, or dishonesty.
In the case at bar, the record is bereft of any
showing of wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct on the
part of the respondent justices. The complainant failed to
substantiate his claim of corruption and bribery, and
merely relied on mere conjectures and suppositions.
Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot
be given credence.
Finally, as correctly pointed out by the Court
Administrator, the respondents cannot be held liable for
violation of Supreme Court Resolution No. 2-9-2002, as
the same does not define nor punish an offense, but
merely defines the extent of the consequence of an
administrative complaint if filed against Justices of the
Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, Judges of the
Regular and Special Courts and court officials who are
lawyers.
215
216
IN RE BORROMEO
FACTS: Joaquin Borromeo is not a lawyer, but has
apparently read some law books and come to possess
awareness of some substantive legal principles and
procedural rules. For 16 years, he has been instituting and
prosecuting legal proceedings in various courts. (just in
case Sir asks who the hell this guy is)
NOTE: The significance of this description is that
Borromeo was held guilty for contempt for litigating issues
already declared to be without merit, rendered adversely
to him in many suits and proceedings, rulings which had
become final and executory, obdurately and unreasonably
insisting on the application of his own individual version of
the rules, founded on nothing more than his personal (and
quite erroneous) reading of the Constitution and the law;
he has insulted the judges and court officers, including the
attorneys appearing for his adversaries, needlessly
217
LINDA M.
CARPIO
AGNES
REYES-
218
219
220
ARTICLE 210
GARCIA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
(I think the important part here is the identification of those
government positions which would be within the scope of
the R.A. 1379.)
Facts: Petitioner Major General Carlos F. Garcia was the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership of the AFP. Atty.
Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas from the office of the
ombudsman, after due investigation, filed a complaint
against petitioner with the Ombudsman, for violation of
Sec. 8, in relation to Sec. 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
6713,19 violation of Art. 183 of the RPC, and violation of
Section 52 (A)(1), (3) and (20) of the Civil Service Law.
Based on this complaint, a case for Violations of R.A.
No. 1379,20 Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code, and
Sec. 8 in relation to Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 6713, was
filed against petitioner.
Petitioners wife Clarita Depakakibo Garcia, and
their three sons, Ian Carl, Juan Paolo and Timothy Mark,
all surnamed Garcia, were impleaded in the complaint for
violation of R.A. No. 1379 insofar as they acted as
conspirators, conduits, dummies and fronts of petitioner in
receiving, accumulating, using and disposing of his illgotten wealth.
The Republic of the Philippines, acting through
the Ombudsman, filed before the Sandiganbayan, a
Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Attachment against petitioner, his wife, and three sons,
seeking the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties
under Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 1379.
It was alleged that the Office of the Ombudsman,
after conducting an inquiry similar to a preliminary
investigation in criminal cases, has determined that a
prima facie case exists against Maj. Gen. Garcia and the
other respondents therein who hold such properties for,
with, or on behalf of, Maj. Gen. Garcia, since during his
incumbency as a soldier and public officer he acquired
huge amounts of money and properties manifestly out of
proportion to his salary as such public officer and his other
lawful income, if any.
Petitioner (as respondent a quo) filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan over forfeiture proceedings under R.A.
No. 1379. On even date, petitioner filed the present
Petition, raising the same issue of lack jurisdiction on the
part of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner argues in this
Petition that the Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction over
the civil action for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired
19 Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees; 20 February 1989.
20 An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any Property
Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or
Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor
221
222
MAMBA VS JUDGE
MERENCILLO V. PEOPLE
Doctrine: Conviction under both RA 3019 and Direct
Bribery is NOT double jeopardy
Facts: Lucit Estillore went to the BIR office in Tagbilaran
City to ask for the computation of taxes due on the sale of
real property to Ramasola Superstudio, Inc (owned by Ma.
Angeles Cesar) and to apply for a certificate authorizing
registration (CAR). The revenue examiner assessed the
taxes and Estillore paid them. The examiner, however,
advised Estillore that the CAR will be released in 7 days
pending approval of Merencillo (evil supervisor).
Merencillo called Cesar wanting to meet her in
his office. Upon their meeting, Merencillo demanded P20,
000 in exchange for the CAR. Cesar said that she will
confer with her business partners first. Merencillo soon
made several demands for the money and refused to
release the CAR. An entrapment scheme was set up after
Cesar complained to the PNP. As such, Merencillo was
caught red-handed!
223
Check!
No check
224
3.
4.
Not discussed
The act which the offender agrees to perform is
connected with the performance of his official
duties.
No check
PELIGRINO V PEOPLE
To convict the accused in a prosecution for the violation of
Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft Law, mere receipt of a gift or
any other benefit is enough, even without any express
demand for it. The duration of the possession is not
controlling. Important are the appellants words, action
and reactions showing acceptance thereof.
Peligrino was an Examiner for the BIR, hence, a public
officer. His co-accused was Atty. Buenafe. Atty. Buenafe
delivered a letter to the complainant Dr. Feliciano saying
that Peligrino was going to examine his (Feliciano) books.
However, Peligrino never came to examine the books.
A few weeks later, Peligrino and Atty. Buenafe
went to the doctor and told him that his tax deficiencies
amounted to P500k. Flabbergasted since his books were
never examined, the doctor figured he was being extorted.
He negotiated for a smaller amount, and they agreed that
200k would instead be paid P50k going to the BIR, P150
going to the pockets of Peligrino and Buenafe.
Feliciano told the NBI and they arranged that
marked money would be given to the accused during the
pay-off. On the day of the pay-off, only Peligrino appeared.
He received the envelope with marked money, looked at it
and then placed it on the table. Then the NBI agents
arrested him.
He was charged under Sec 3 (b) of the Anti-Graft
Law23. Sandigan found him guilty, but acquitted Atty.
Buenafe.
Issue: Is he guilty?
225
Held: Yes.
protestations that the money bills landed on the open pages of his
diary, only after he had flung them back to the complainant.
226
MARIFOSQUE V. PEOPLE
Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
Sandiganbayan resolution finding Marifosque, a member
of the police force of Legaspi City, guilty of the crime of
direct bribery.
The spouses Sy went to the office of Captain Salvo
of the PNP to report the robbery of Shellane tanks at their
gasoline station, and the alleged extortion attempt made
by Police Sergeant Marifosque, in exchange for the
recovery of the lost items. Thus, Capt. Salvo set up a plan
to entrap him -Sy would pay off Marifosque, using marked
money (P4,800) wrapped in newspaper, at the Golden
Grace Dept. Store while the police would position
themselves strategically outside. Marifosque arrived via
tricycle, went inside, and demanded the money from Sy
who then handed him the money. Upon Sys signal, the
police operatives swooped down on their comrade and
arrested him. Sy later on testified that Marifosque
demanded P7,200 but she bargained to lower it down to
4.8k.
Marifosques defense (which an assets testimony
corroborates): a police asset came to his house to tip him
off about a robbery he witnessed at a gasoline station.
They went to the police station to report the incident, then
the asset asked if he could get P350 per cylinder tank as a
reward. So Marifosque relayed that message to Sy, who
agreed if that was the only way to recover the tanks and
apprehend the robbers. Based on the assets info, the
police then went to the house of Arnaldo where they found
the stolen gas tanks. Arnaldo arrived but he was not
arrested bec he allegedly promised to lead them to the
other stolen tanks. The police went back to the station and
made a report. He said that: 1) he was not the one who
asked for a reward for Sy but his asset; 2) There was no
evidence to prove that he intended to appropriate the
amount; 3) He merely relayed the assets request for a
reward to Sy who was agreeable to the same.
Despite this defense, the Sandiganbayan convicted
Marifosque of direct bribery.
ISSUE: W/N the act of Marifosque in recieving sums of
money for delivery to his asset constitutes Direct Bribery YES.
227
228
229
FORMILLEZA V SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: Leonor Formilleza was the personnel supervisor
of the regional office of the National Irrigation
Administration (NIA) in Tacloban City, Leyte. Her duties
include the processing of the appointment papers of
employees.
On the other hand, a certain Mrs. Estrella Mutia
was an employee of the NIA whose term was coterminous
with a project. When her appointment was terminated, she
nonetheless continued working for the NIA pursuant to the
230
231
232
(c)
(d)
233
234
FRIAS v. PEOPLE
FACTS: Hermes FRIAS was charged with violation of
Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. It was alleged that
FRIAS, an accountable officer, being then the Municipal
Mayor of Capas, Tarlac, after being required by the
Commission of Audit to settles his disallowed cash
advances amounting to P1M, failed to render accounts for
a period of two months after such accounts should have
been rendered, to the damage and prejudice of the
government.
The prosecution presented Tarlac Provincial
Auditor Abesamis of the Commission on Audit as its sole
witness, who testified that she and her team, in the course
of their audit examination, discovered that FRIAS, on
behalf of the Municipality of Capas, made cash advances
amounting to P50,000 and P950,000. These cash
advances were allocated for the maintenance of economic
enterprises and the augmentation of the general
fund, respectively. However, Abesamis and her team and
disallowed them for lack of a specific legal purpose.
On Dec. 19, 1997, Abesamis notified FRIAS,
municipal treasurer Panganiban and municipal accountant
Domingo of the disallowance of the cash advances and
directed them to settle the P1M immediately. Panganiban
and Domingo failed to return the amount, while FRIAS
refused for the reason that he gave the proceeds of the
cash advances to Panganiban. Abesamis, mindful of
FRIAS's predicament, pointed out that the cash advances
were made under his (FRIAS') authority. Moreover, the
checks were payable to him (as payee) and he admitted
receipt thereof. Thus, even if he gave the proceeds to
Panganiban, he was still required to return the P1M.
Notwithstanding Abesamis' demand, FRIAS did
not account for the cash advance. Thus, Abesamis
recommended the filing of this criminal complaint against
FRIAS.
In his defense, FRIAS argued that he was not
liable for the cash advances because he did not derive
any benefit from them. Panganiban alone benefited from
the cash advances as she used the P1M to settle her
existing deficiencies with the COA. FRIAS pointed out that
the COA, upon Abesamis' recommendation, also filed a
criminal complaint against Panganiban.
th
The 4 Div. of the Sandiganbayang found FRIAS
guilty due to the concurrence of the ff elements: 1) FRIAS
was a public officer; 2) he was an officer accountable for
public funds or property; 3) he was required by law or
regulation to render accounts to the COA or provincial
auditor and 4) he failed to render an account for the period
of two months after such accounts should have been
rendered.
ISSUE: Whether FRIAS was guilty under Article 218
YES!
HELD:
PETITIONER IS AN ACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC OFFICER
According to the Local Government Code, municipal
mayors are chief executives of their respective
municipalities. Section 102 of the Government Auditing
Code of the Philippines provides that The head of any
agency of the government is immediately and
primarily responsible for all government funds and
property pertaining to his agency.
In Barriga v. Sandiganbayan, the Court held that
public officers are accountable if they, as part of their
235
QUERIJERO VS PEOPLE
FACTS: Accused was an accountable public officer, a
cashier of the Provincial Heal Office, and as such was
accountable for public funds. She misappropriated the
amount of 165,000. It appears that a COA team went to
the office of the accused and opened a safety deposit box
assigned to her, she was summoned on the opening but
alleged that she has been on sick leave a number of days
prior to the inspection. When the COA team found the
shortage, accused denied having any unliquidated market
and miscellaneous expenses since it has already been
paid but not reimbursed.
Issue: What would sustain a conviction for malversation of
public funds, and was the audit properly made.
Held: audit not properly made, cannot sustain conviction
Ratio: Under Art 217 of RPC conviction requires proof that
1) offender is public officer 2) has custody or control of
funds 3) funds involved are public funds for which he is
accountable 4) he has misappropriated by himself or has
consented to through negligence or abandonment, the
taking by another of such funds. It appears that the
accused at the time was the cashier of the health office,
she was found guilty on art 217 which provides that the
failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any
public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon
demand by and duly authorized officer, shall be prima
facie evidence that he has put such missing funds to
personal use
Such presumption was overcome by petitioner
because the presumption cannot arise in this case
because the audit conducted was irregular, incomplete
and inaccurate and hence the shortage was not
established. The records showed that there were other
accountable officers in the cashiers office who were
responsible for the same funds as the accused. However
only the cash and accounts of accused were examined by
the COA team, this would lead to certain errors and
inaccuracies. The prima facie presumption arises only if
there is no issue as to the accuracy and regularity of the
audit and the fact that the funds are missing is duly
established.
An accountable officer is defined in the
Government Auditing Code of the Phil, he is every officer
of any government agency whose duties permit or require
the possession or custody of government funds and who
shall be accountable therefor and for the safekeeping
thereof in conformity with law. It is the nature of the duties
which he performs and not the nomenclature of the
position held. It should be emphasized then at this
juncture that the audit team should have examined all
236
BARRIGA VS SANDIGANBAYAN
WARNING: MAHABA!
FACTS: BARRIGA and VILLAMOR, Municipal accountant
and mayor respectively of a municipality in Cebu, were
charged with malversation and illegal use of public
funds (in relation to water projects [ex. construction of
pipelines and deep wells] in their municipality). Three
informations were filed against them (Note: Info also
alleged that BARRIGA conspired with Mayor). BARRIGA
filed a motion to quash Info on numerous grounds:
237
CASTILLO v. BUENCILLO
Facts: Castillo was the complainant in a criminal case for
estafa against Zabella before the RTC San Pablo. During
trial, Zabella offered P70k as settlement for the civil aspect
of the case. Castillo was reluctant to accept the amount
for being insufficient, prompting the counsel of Zabella to
suggest that the money be left with the court. Presiding
judge agreed and ordered OIC Branch Clerk of Court,
defendant Buencillo (hereinafter CLERK), to receive the
amount. Fearful that the money might be lost if left in the
238
239
AQUINO v. OLIVARES
FACTS: Judge Aquino reported that he issued a
Memorandum to Ricardo Olivares, Clerk of Court of MCTC
Davao del Norte, directing Olivares to explain in writing
under oath why he should not be administratively charged
for violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95 and/or
malversation through falsification of public document for
keeping in his possession for five (5) months the cash
bond in the amount of P12,000.00, posted by an accused.
In his written explanation, Clerk of Court Olivares
acknowledged that he incurred delay in depositing the bail
bond of P12,000.00 to the Municipal Treasurer (now City
Treasurer) but raised as a defense that the delay was due
to oversight considering that he is old and sometimes
forgetful. He noticed the bail bond contained in an
envelope only when he was checking his records in
preparation for his retirement. Immediately, he deposited
the amount with the Municipal Treasurer. He vehemently
denied that he misappropriated the same.
ISSUES:
1. W/N Olivares may be held liable for malversation
through falsification of public document? (No)
2. W/N Olivares may be held administratively liable?
(Yes)
HELD: Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95 dated October
11, 1995 states that all collections from bailbonds, rental
deposits, and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited
within twenty-four (24) hours by the Clerk of Court
concerned, upon receipt thereof, with the land Bank of the
Philippines.
Clearly, respondent Olivares violated the above
Circulars. He should have deposited the cash bond
immediately or within twenty-four (24) hours with the
Municipal Treasurer. Instead, it took him about five (5)
months to do so.
The charge of malversation through falsification of
public document has no basis. One essential element of
PEOPLE V. ENFERMO
FACTS:
Office of the Ombudsman filed 12 informations
against Enfermo and Entienza, both former
employees of the National Research Council of the
Philippines (NRCP). Several of the cases filed were
dismissed for repeated failure of the prosecution to
present evidence. As a result of the dismissal of those
cases, the only ones that survived and were 2 cases
for Malversation through Falsification of Public
Documents and 2 other cases for Estafa through
Falsification of Public Documents in which only
Enfermo was charged.
Enfermo, held the position of Disbursing Officer II,
Accounting Section, Finance and Administrative
Division of the NRCP. His duties and responsibilities
are to:
o assist the cashier in the preparation and the
release of the checks covering the financial
transaction of the NRCP; and
o assist the cashier in encashing the checks
for salaries of the employees of NRCP.
It was discovered that the debit and credit records of
the checks issued and paid by its depositary bank,
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), did not balance.
An investigation disclosed that there were double
240
ARRIOLA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
494 SCRA 44
Facts: DENR Forest Rangers and PNP officers
confiscated 44 pieces of illegally sawn lumber totaling
1,174 board feet w/ an estimated value of P17,611.20.
241
RUEDA VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts: Rueda was the municipal treasurer of Tigaon,
Camarines
Sur. An
audit
examination
of
the
accountabilities of Rueda was conducted covering the
242
243
244
245
JUDGE DOMINGO
CAMURONGAN
SAN
JOSE
VS
ROBERT
246
CONSOLIDATED
CASE
OF
ARIAS
VS
SANDIGANBAYAN AND DATA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
CAMPOMANES V. PEOPLE
Case involves irregularities in the disbursement of the Phil.
Sports Commission funds made available to Federation
Internationale Des Echecs (FIDE a swiss organization).
The PSC submitted a bid offer to FIDE to host a chess
Olympiad, which bid was accepted.
PSC board then issued a resolution appropriating
for the monthly expenditure of FIDE. PSC also remitted to
FIDE Php 12.876M also in connection with the world
chess olympiad. FIDEs President, Campomanes,
received said amount. (it is the 12M that is subject of this
case)
COA then audited PSCs transactions. COA
noticed lack of acknowledgement receipts (proof the FIDE
received amounts) and accounting liquidation (used to
explain how funds were spent) attached to the
disbursement vouchers.
Thus, an information was filed against
Campomanes and Hechanova (PSC Chair). It alleged that
Hechanova and Campomanes conspired to get the 12M
and failed to render accounts for its disbursement.
Sandiganbayan ruling: Hechanova acquitted,
only Campomanes is guilty.
Campomanes now appeals, arguing that he cant
be made liable under Art 218 (failure to render accounts)
in relation to Art 222 (officers included in the preceding
provision) because he is not required by law to render an
accounting.
Issue: guilty? No.
Ruling: Elements of Art 218:
247
248
ESTRADA VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts: The Court has found President ERAP, with family
and associates, GUILTY of plunder amounting to P4B
under the account name Jose Velarde. Here, ERAP
seeks to petition that (1) RA 7080 (Anti-Plunder Law) is so
vague, its unconstitutional. (2) Also, due to the
vagueness, he must be acquitted due to reasonable
doubt and (c) the law, in effect, abolishes the requirement
of mens rea to crimes already punishable under the RPC.
Issue: Whether or not RA 7080 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
due to:
Vagueness
Abolishing the Mens Rea requirement through the
conversion of the crime from mala inse to mala
prohibitum
Held: ALL UNTENABLE. The Court held that RA 7080 is
constitutional.
Ratio:
(1)
Law is not vague. Any purported inability of
Congress to clearly define the words employed will NOT
necessarily void the law for vagueness SO LONG AS the
legislative will is clear, or at least can be gathered from the
whole act. RA 7080 distinctly expressed its legislative will.
Moreover, legal hermeneutics provide that words in a
statute shall be interpreted in their plain and ordinary
meaning since Congress are also regular people, unless
the law itself indicates a special legal meaning. Here,
when the Anti-Plunder Law used the words combination"
and "series", it simply means combination and series. For
just as the accused is entitled to the presumption of
innocence in the absence of proof beyond reasonable
doubt, so must a law be accorded the presumption of
constitutionality without the same requisite quantum of
proof. "The constitutionality of laws is presumed. To justify
nullification of a law, there must be a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful or
argumentative implication; a law shall not be declared
invalid unless the conflict with the Constitution is clear
beyond a reasonable doubt. 'The presumption is always in
favor of constitutionality . . . To doubt is to sustain.' The
"vagueness" doctrine merely requires a reasonable
degree of certainty not absolute precision or
mathematical exactitude, as ERAP seems to suggest.
249
Dissents:
9. On vagueness
Dissent of Kapunan, J., citing Fr. Bernas
The Constitution guarantees both substantive
and procedural due process as well as the right of
the accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him. Fr. Bernas
poses the question: "How can you have a 'series'
of criminal acts if the elements that are supposed
to constitute the series are not proved to be
criminal?" The meanings of "combination" and
"series" as used in R.A. No. 7080 are not clear if
the elements that are supposed to constitute the
series are not proved to be criminal?" Because of
this, it is easier to convict for plunder and
sentence the accused to death than to convict him
for each of the component crimes otherwise
punishable under the RPC which are bailable.
This absurdity then, violates due process and
equal protection.
10. On Mens Rea
Dissent of Kapunan, J.,
The component acts of plunder, a heinous
crime, are patently mala in se being inherently
wrongful and immoral, even if punished by SPL.
Thus, criminal intent must clearly be established
together with the other elements of the crime;
otherwise, no crime is committed. Here, when RA
7080 eliminated mens rea, it no longer requires
the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the component acts constituting plunder, thus
imposing a lesser burden of proof, thus paving the
way for the imposition of reclusion perpetua or
death, violating due process and equal protection
clauses.
Dissent of Ynares-Santiago, J.,
In malversation or bribery under the RPC, criminal intent is
an important element. Here, it is enough that the acts are
committed and does away with the requirement that each
and every component of the criminal act of plunder be
proved... instead limiting to proving only a pattern of overt
acts indicative of the unlawful scheme or conspiracy. In
250